To what extent does the government conduct high-quality impact assessments to evaluate the potential effects of prepared legislation before implementation?
The government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
10
---
---
9
Denmark
For all proposed legislation and administrative regulations, there is an explicit requirement that impact assessments be carried out to determine the economic and administrative consequences for state and local governments, the effects on businesses, and the environmental impact. The relation to EU legislation must also be assessed.
Consideration of consequences begins during the initial review of a new law or regulation (screening stage), and continues as the content and scope of the new measures are evaluated (scoping stage). A detailed RIA is then developed during the final stage (assessment stage).
When new legislation is based on EU legislation, the impact assessment will be included in the document (samlenotat) that goes to the European Affairs Committee in the parliament. According to a rough estimate, about 40% of new Danish legislation is based on or related to EU regulations. In recent years, more emphasis has been placed on evidence-based policies in areas such as labor market and social policies, for example. Evaluations have been explicitly integrated into policy formulation processes and, in the case of labor market policies, some experimental studies regarding activation programs have been drawn upon.
Following the long tradition of an open public sector, RIAs are publicly available, and when they suggest that a given policy is not providing the expected results, a policy change often follows. However, the speed of this change depends to some extent on the level of public attention the issue attracts.
There is a long tradition of quantifying both short-run and long-run effects of economic policies, and numerous models have been developed for this purpose. These include the Annual Danish Aggregate Model (ADAM) model used by the Ministry of Finance and the Simulation Model of the Economic Council (SMEC) model used by the Council of Economic Advisers. Over the years, these models have been refined and updated. Although the two models are not drastically different, their use has fostered an environment of openness and transparency in the quantitative assessments of fiscal policy effects.
A newly developed model, MAKRO, will soon be used by the Ministry of Finance. Among the key features of this dynamic model is its ability to merge short-term effects with long-term structural aspects. Additionally, there is a Green Reform model to quantify the effects of environmental and climate policies (see Kirk et al., 2024).
Consideration of consequences begins during the initial review of a new law or regulation (screening stage), and continues as the content and scope of the new measures are evaluated (scoping stage). A detailed RIA is then developed during the final stage (assessment stage).
When new legislation is based on EU legislation, the impact assessment will be included in the document (samlenotat) that goes to the European Affairs Committee in the parliament. According to a rough estimate, about 40% of new Danish legislation is based on or related to EU regulations. In recent years, more emphasis has been placed on evidence-based policies in areas such as labor market and social policies, for example. Evaluations have been explicitly integrated into policy formulation processes and, in the case of labor market policies, some experimental studies regarding activation programs have been drawn upon.
Following the long tradition of an open public sector, RIAs are publicly available, and when they suggest that a given policy is not providing the expected results, a policy change often follows. However, the speed of this change depends to some extent on the level of public attention the issue attracts.
There is a long tradition of quantifying both short-run and long-run effects of economic policies, and numerous models have been developed for this purpose. These include the Annual Danish Aggregate Model (ADAM) model used by the Ministry of Finance and the Simulation Model of the Economic Council (SMEC) model used by the Council of Economic Advisers. Over the years, these models have been refined and updated. Although the two models are not drastically different, their use has fostered an environment of openness and transparency in the quantitative assessments of fiscal policy effects.
A newly developed model, MAKRO, will soon be used by the Ministry of Finance. Among the key features of this dynamic model is its ability to merge short-term effects with long-term structural aspects. Additionally, there is a Green Reform model to quantify the effects of environmental and climate policies (see Kirk et al., 2024).
Citations:
Kirk, J. S., et al. 2024. Development of the GreenREFORM Model. Sharing Learnings from Development of the Climate and Energy-Economic CGE-Model GreenREFORM. Copenhagen: Danish Research Institute for Economic Analysis and Modelling.
https://dreamgroup.dk/Media/638493769228252341/Development_of_the_GreenREFORM_model.pdf
Christiansen, Peter Munk, Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen and Martin Bækgaard. 2022. Politik og forvaltning. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel.
Kirk, J. S., et al. 2024. Development of the GreenREFORM Model. Sharing Learnings from Development of the Climate and Energy-Economic CGE-Model GreenREFORM. Copenhagen: Danish Research Institute for Economic Analysis and Modelling.
https://dreamgroup.dk/Media/638493769228252341/Development_of_the_GreenREFORM_model.pdf
Christiansen, Peter Munk, Jørgen Grønnegård Christensen and Martin Bækgaard. 2022. Politik og forvaltning. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel.
In most cases, the government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
8
Canada
Studies about potential policy impacts are sometimes reduced to a few lines in cabinet briefs, but this should not obscure that longer documents are often used for major policy rollouts. Impacts are occasionally assessed through stakeholder consultations, though these may also accompany broader policy briefings on the current socioeconomic environment and the latest research on a topic.
Frequently, the federal government uses the results of special studies or commissions to inform briefings and policy decisions. The Advisory Council on Economic Growth, for example, provided recommendations that directly influenced government decision-making on superclusters. Additionally, before new policy initiatives move forward, a quick environmental scan is typically conducted to review existing research and work.
In addition, the federal government has a regulatory impact analysis system in place.
The federal Cabinet Directive on Regulation requires departments and agencies to conduct a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for any proposed new or amended regulation that could have significant impacts. RIAs are typically comprehensive, and the underlying departmental work can be quite extensive. RIAs are often informed by scientific research that the department, if mandated, is itself conducting, such as in the case of environment and climate change.
The RIA involves identifying potential impacts of regulatory changes, quantifying costs and benefits where possible, assessing distributional impacts on different groups, comparing various options and recommending the best option.
The Treasury Board Secretariat issues detailed guidance to departments on how to properly conduct RIAs as part of the regulatory planning and approval process. Health Canada, Environment Canada, and Finance Canada have specialized units to help conduct quality RIAs across departments on regulations in their sectors.
Regulatory Impact Analyses must be finalized in draft form before prepublishing proposed regulations in Canada Gazette Part I, allowing for external feedback that can lead to further analysis.
The final RIAs accompany all regulations tabled in Parliament and become publicly available when the regulations are finalized in the Canada Gazette Part II (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2018).
Frequently, the federal government uses the results of special studies or commissions to inform briefings and policy decisions. The Advisory Council on Economic Growth, for example, provided recommendations that directly influenced government decision-making on superclusters. Additionally, before new policy initiatives move forward, a quick environmental scan is typically conducted to review existing research and work.
In addition, the federal government has a regulatory impact analysis system in place.
The federal Cabinet Directive on Regulation requires departments and agencies to conduct a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for any proposed new or amended regulation that could have significant impacts. RIAs are typically comprehensive, and the underlying departmental work can be quite extensive. RIAs are often informed by scientific research that the department, if mandated, is itself conducting, such as in the case of environment and climate change.
The RIA involves identifying potential impacts of regulatory changes, quantifying costs and benefits where possible, assessing distributional impacts on different groups, comparing various options and recommending the best option.
The Treasury Board Secretariat issues detailed guidance to departments on how to properly conduct RIAs as part of the regulatory planning and approval process. Health Canada, Environment Canada, and Finance Canada have specialized units to help conduct quality RIAs across departments on regulations in their sectors.
Regulatory Impact Analyses must be finalized in draft form before prepublishing proposed regulations in Canada Gazette Part I, allowing for external feedback that can lead to further analysis.
The final RIAs accompany all regulations tabled in Parliament and become publicly available when the regulations are finalized in the Canada Gazette Part II (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2018).
Citations:
Secretariat, Treasury Board of Canada. 2018. “Cabinet Directive on Regulation.” https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/laws/developing-improving-federal-regulations/requirements-developing-managing-reviewing-regulations/guidelines-tools/cabinet-directive-regulation.html
Advisory Council on Economic Growth (ACEG). 2017. Unlocking Innovation to Drive Scale and Growth. Ottawa: ACEG.
Secretariat, Treasury Board of Canada. 2018. “Cabinet Directive on Regulation.” https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/laws/developing-improving-federal-regulations/requirements-developing-managing-reviewing-regulations/guidelines-tools/cabinet-directive-regulation.html
Advisory Council on Economic Growth (ACEG). 2017. Unlocking Innovation to Drive Scale and Growth. Ottawa: ACEG.
Estonia
Preliminary regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) are prepared for all primary laws and selected subordinate regulations. Although full RIAs are rarely conducted, simplified RIAs are included (OECD 2022). The Legislative Quality Division within the Ministry of Justice reviews the quality of RIAs and can return them for revision if they do not meet quality standards. This division is also responsible for the systematic improvement and evaluation of regulatory policy, and reports annually to parliament. Additionally, the division issues RIA guidelines and scrutinizes the legal quality of draft regulations. Complementing this work, the GO Strategy Unit coordinates stakeholder engagement in policymaking across the government. The GO office’s EU Secretariat handles coordination regarding EU law and its transposition.
Estonia places a strong focus on accessibility and transparency of regulatory policy through the use of online tools. The EIS online information system tracks all legislative developments and makes regulatory impact assessments available on a central portal. However, EIS remains rather passive, serving as a good source of information but not for interaction (Elbrecht 2023). For public consultations, other channels – such as ministries’ websites and social media platforms – are used to disseminate information in addition to EIS.
One of the recent concerns has been amendments related to the State Budget Act, which implemented activity-based budgeting. According to many experts (ERR 2022), this process has made the budgeting logic opaque, hindering the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders in consultation activities, but also meaningful parliamentary debate.
Estonia places a strong focus on accessibility and transparency of regulatory policy through the use of online tools. The EIS online information system tracks all legislative developments and makes regulatory impact assessments available on a central portal. However, EIS remains rather passive, serving as a good source of information but not for interaction (Elbrecht 2023). For public consultations, other channels – such as ministries’ websites and social media platforms – are used to disseminate information in addition to EIS.
One of the recent concerns has been amendments related to the State Budget Act, which implemented activity-based budgeting. According to many experts (ERR 2022), this process has made the budgeting logic opaque, hindering the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders in consultation activities, but also meaningful parliamentary debate.
Citations:
Elbrecht, G. 2023. “Riigireformist ja riigivalitsemise tulevikust (About State Reform and the Future of State Governance in Estonia).” Riigikogu Toimetised 2023, 48. https://rito.riigikogu.ee/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/81-94_Fookus-Elbrecht.pdf
ERR. 2022. “State Budget Act set for further amendment.” https://news.err.ee/1608755332/state-budget-act-set-for-further-amendment
OECD. 2022. Better Regulation Practices across the European Union 2022. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Elbrecht, G. 2023. “Riigireformist ja riigivalitsemise tulevikust (About State Reform and the Future of State Governance in Estonia).” Riigikogu Toimetised 2023, 48. https://rito.riigikogu.ee/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/81-94_Fookus-Elbrecht.pdf
ERR. 2022. “State Budget Act set for further amendment.” https://news.err.ee/1608755332/state-budget-act-set-for-further-amendment
OECD. 2022. Better Regulation Practices across the European Union 2022. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Finland
The Finnish government understands that regular and comprehensive assessments of regulations are fundamental to governing complex and open societies and economies. Consequently, the country has implemented a thorough regulatory impact assessment (RIA) program. Finland has formally adopted a regulatory impact assessment strategy that includes instructions to be followed when drafting legislative proposals, complemented by additional guidance issued by ministries. These assessments utilize multiple indicator sets, consult various interests and employ different techniques.
Systematic impact assessment is a routine part of the Finnish draft-legislation process, although it is not mandated by law. Regulatory impact assessment activities have included a series of evaluation reports by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that address partner countries, geographic regions and principles of development policy. Additionally, assessments have investigated the activities of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, and an international evaluation of the Finnish national innovation system – commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Ministry of Employment and the Economy – has been conducted.
The general framework for regulatory impact assessments is grounded in a program-management system governing intersectoral policy programs. This framework, initiated in 2007, continues to guide impact assessments. An independent Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis was established in December 2015 within the Prime Minister’s Office as part of the Sipilä government’s program. The council is responsible for issuing statements on government proposals and on their regulatory impact assessments.
Several government bills have been rejected by the Constitutional Committee in parliament. These have included proposals on social and healthcare reform as well as measures to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The committee criticized the government proposals as poorly prepared and lacking sufficient impact assessments.
Impact assessment guidelines adopted in 2007 still provide a general framework for the process of regulatory impact assessment. The Revision Bureau of the Ministry of Justice’s Law Drafting Department monitors compliance with these impact assessment guidelines. Impact assessments cover the economic, administrative, environmental and social impacts of proposed legislation. The guidelines describe what kind of impact may be involved, how the impact may be assessed, and what methods and sources of information are available. They also specify the extent to which this information must be included in the assessments. For instance, assessments may address proposals’ potential economic impact on households, businesses and public finances, as well as the overall economic impact. However, there are no uniform (scientific) minimum standards for implementing RIAs.
Regarding methodology, guidelines recommend the use of statistical data, questionnaire data, expert analyses and, when necessary, qualitative methods. Generally, the regulatory impact assessment process is well-structured and of high quality. However, in its annual review for the 2017 assessment, the Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact noted that although guidelines for drafting laws were available, the guidelines were somewhat inconsistent and overlapping.
There is no legal requirement to involve stakeholders who can provide empirical information on the needs and likely responses of individuals regarding a regulatory change. However, stakeholders are routinely offered the opportunity to give a statement on the proposed regulation. The statements are made public once the draft law is processed in parliament.
In its report for 2018, the Council of Regulatory Impact Assessment noted that the quality of impact assessments had improved, but also pointed out that more resources were needed to strengthen ministries’ expertise in drafting legislation. During the pandemic, ministries’ capacities to prepare new legal proposals and conduct impact assessments were overstretched. This was particularly true of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, which prepared a large number of law proposals and decrees related to efforts to contain the COVID-19 virus.
Once a draft law is published, the results of the RIAs are also made public. However, the RIAs do not directly impact new legislation. Instead, the proposed legislation is based on the cabinet program. RIAs are written in a manner that facilitates the passing of the proposed legislation.
The RIAs provide reliable information about the impacts of regulations on key socioeconomic indicators such as public budgets, labor market outcomes, the environment and compliance costs for businesses. However, RIAs very rarely lead to changes in legislation.
Modern analysis methods, such as those derived from behavioral research, are rarely used in RIAs.
Systematic impact assessment is a routine part of the Finnish draft-legislation process, although it is not mandated by law. Regulatory impact assessment activities have included a series of evaluation reports by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that address partner countries, geographic regions and principles of development policy. Additionally, assessments have investigated the activities of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, and an international evaluation of the Finnish national innovation system – commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Ministry of Employment and the Economy – has been conducted.
The general framework for regulatory impact assessments is grounded in a program-management system governing intersectoral policy programs. This framework, initiated in 2007, continues to guide impact assessments. An independent Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis was established in December 2015 within the Prime Minister’s Office as part of the Sipilä government’s program. The council is responsible for issuing statements on government proposals and on their regulatory impact assessments.
Several government bills have been rejected by the Constitutional Committee in parliament. These have included proposals on social and healthcare reform as well as measures to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The committee criticized the government proposals as poorly prepared and lacking sufficient impact assessments.
Impact assessment guidelines adopted in 2007 still provide a general framework for the process of regulatory impact assessment. The Revision Bureau of the Ministry of Justice’s Law Drafting Department monitors compliance with these impact assessment guidelines. Impact assessments cover the economic, administrative, environmental and social impacts of proposed legislation. The guidelines describe what kind of impact may be involved, how the impact may be assessed, and what methods and sources of information are available. They also specify the extent to which this information must be included in the assessments. For instance, assessments may address proposals’ potential economic impact on households, businesses and public finances, as well as the overall economic impact. However, there are no uniform (scientific) minimum standards for implementing RIAs.
Regarding methodology, guidelines recommend the use of statistical data, questionnaire data, expert analyses and, when necessary, qualitative methods. Generally, the regulatory impact assessment process is well-structured and of high quality. However, in its annual review for the 2017 assessment, the Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact noted that although guidelines for drafting laws were available, the guidelines were somewhat inconsistent and overlapping.
There is no legal requirement to involve stakeholders who can provide empirical information on the needs and likely responses of individuals regarding a regulatory change. However, stakeholders are routinely offered the opportunity to give a statement on the proposed regulation. The statements are made public once the draft law is processed in parliament.
In its report for 2018, the Council of Regulatory Impact Assessment noted that the quality of impact assessments had improved, but also pointed out that more resources were needed to strengthen ministries’ expertise in drafting legislation. During the pandemic, ministries’ capacities to prepare new legal proposals and conduct impact assessments were overstretched. This was particularly true of the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, which prepared a large number of law proposals and decrees related to efforts to contain the COVID-19 virus.
Once a draft law is published, the results of the RIAs are also made public. However, the RIAs do not directly impact new legislation. Instead, the proposed legislation is based on the cabinet program. RIAs are written in a manner that facilitates the passing of the proposed legislation.
The RIAs provide reliable information about the impacts of regulations on key socioeconomic indicators such as public budgets, labor market outcomes, the environment and compliance costs for businesses. However, RIAs very rarely lead to changes in legislation.
Modern analysis methods, such as those derived from behavioral research, are rarely used in RIAs.
Citations:
Ministry of Justice. 2008. “Impact Assessment in Legislative Drafting. Guidelines.” Finland. Publication 2008:4.
Auri Pakarinen, Jyrki Tala and Laura Hämynen. “Regulatory Impact Assessment in the Finnish.”
Government’s Proposals in 2009,” National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Research Communications
no. 104;
“Better Regulation.” Helsinki: Ministry of Justice, 2014.
http://oikeusministerio.fi/en/index/basicprovisions/legislation/parempisaantely.html
Prime Minister’s Office, Finland. “Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis.” http://vnk.fi/en/council-of-regulatory-impact-analysi
“Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis Annual Review 2018.” http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-
287-772-7
Ministry of Justice. 2008. “Impact Assessment in Legislative Drafting. Guidelines.” Finland. Publication 2008:4.
Auri Pakarinen, Jyrki Tala and Laura Hämynen. “Regulatory Impact Assessment in the Finnish.”
Government’s Proposals in 2009,” National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Research Communications
no. 104;
“Better Regulation.” Helsinki: Ministry of Justice, 2014.
http://oikeusministerio.fi/en/index/basicprovisions/legislation/parempisaantely.html
Prime Minister’s Office, Finland. “Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis.” http://vnk.fi/en/council-of-regulatory-impact-analysi
“Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis Annual Review 2018.” http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-
287-772-7
Germany
Germany’s Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) system has received commendable scores from the OECD, according to their most recent assessment (OECD, 2022). The OECD evaluates RIA based on criteria such as systematic adoption, transparency, methodology, and oversight. In 2018, Germany, alongside Estonia and the Czech Republic, held a top position based on the combined score, marking an improvement from 2015 to 2018.
In Germany, RIAs are mandatory for all primary laws and subordinate regulations prepared by the federal government, with no exceptions. Even in emergency cases, legislative initiatives undergo a proportional impact assessment that analyzes the resulting compliance costs.
In terms of methodological rigor, a principle of proportionality is applied. Proposals with low compliance costs or those expected to bring about minor changes are exempt from detailed quantitative assessments, including compliance costs and other regulatory impacts. The decision to skip quantitative assessment requires approval from the National Regulatory Control Council (NKR), based on an estimation of regulatory compliance costs.
The focus of RIAs has largely been on the cost side of regulation, with less attention given to potential benefits.
Stakeholders participate in impact assessments through avenues such as parliamentary expert hearings during the legislative process. The Better Regulation Unit (BRU) in the Federal Chancellery serves as the central coordinating and monitoring body for the federal government’s program on better regulation and bureaucracy reduction. Its mandate has expanded to include the evaluation and enhancement of the ex ante procedure, assessing early-stage compliance costs for Germany in planned EU legislation.
Operating independently from the government, the National Regulatory Control Council (NKR) reviews the quality of all RIAs, provides advice throughout the rulemaking stages, and holds responsibilities in administrative simplification and burden reduction. In November 2019, the German government introduced additional requirements for independent quality control of ex post evaluations, a task also managed by the NKR.
Since 2018, Germany has centralized all ongoing public consultations on a government website in alignment with the federal government’s commitment to enhancing transparency in the legislative process.
In Germany, RIAs are mandatory for all primary laws and subordinate regulations prepared by the federal government, with no exceptions. Even in emergency cases, legislative initiatives undergo a proportional impact assessment that analyzes the resulting compliance costs.
In terms of methodological rigor, a principle of proportionality is applied. Proposals with low compliance costs or those expected to bring about minor changes are exempt from detailed quantitative assessments, including compliance costs and other regulatory impacts. The decision to skip quantitative assessment requires approval from the National Regulatory Control Council (NKR), based on an estimation of regulatory compliance costs.
The focus of RIAs has largely been on the cost side of regulation, with less attention given to potential benefits.
Stakeholders participate in impact assessments through avenues such as parliamentary expert hearings during the legislative process. The Better Regulation Unit (BRU) in the Federal Chancellery serves as the central coordinating and monitoring body for the federal government’s program on better regulation and bureaucracy reduction. Its mandate has expanded to include the evaluation and enhancement of the ex ante procedure, assessing early-stage compliance costs for Germany in planned EU legislation.
Operating independently from the government, the National Regulatory Control Council (NKR) reviews the quality of all RIAs, provides advice throughout the rulemaking stages, and holds responsibilities in administrative simplification and burden reduction. In November 2019, the German government introduced additional requirements for independent quality control of ex post evaluations, a task also managed by the NKR.
Since 2018, Germany has centralized all ongoing public consultations on a government website in alignment with the federal government’s commitment to enhancing transparency in the legislative process.
Citations:
OECD. 2022. Better Regulation Practices across the European Union. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. 2022. Better Regulation Practices across the European Union. Paris: OECD Publishing.
New Zealand
The New Zealand government places significant emphasis on conducting impact assessments to evaluate the potential effects of proposed legislation. While there is no specific legal requirement mandating regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) for all new legislation, policymaking frameworks strongly encourage their use as a standard practice. Guidance for government departments and agencies is provided, in particular, by the Cabinet Manual (Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet 2020) and the Treasury’s regulatory management guidelines (The Treasury 2017). These documents suggest that RIAs should be conducted for significant policy proposals to comprehensively assess their potential impacts.
The Treasury’s RIA guidelines outline a structured process for conducting RIAs, emphasizing the need to analyze the economic, environmental, social and regulatory impacts of proposed policies or regulations. The guidelines also recommend involving stakeholders to gather empirical information, insights and perspectives on how proposed regulatory changes might affect them. Moreover, the Treasury guidelines state that the results of RIAs should be made available to the public.
A 2021 OECD report ranks New Zealand’s RIA process above the OECD average, highlighting stakeholder consultation and the publication of impact assessments online as particular strengths. However, the report also notes that RIA practices would benefit from a more systematic approach to notifying stakeholders of upcoming opportunities to contribute to regulatory proposals (OECD 2021).
Assessing the direct impact of regulatory impact assessments on legislative changes is challenging, as these changes are not explicitly documented or systematically tracked. Although RIAs play a crucial role in the policymaking process, the extent to which they lead to legislative modifications may depend on various factors, such as whether RIAs are covered by major news outlets. For instance, the negative expert opinions expressed in the RIA of Labour’s Three Waters proposal were widely reported in the media (e.g., Coughlan 2022), potentially contributing to negative public opinion and prompting the government to significantly revise its proposal. However, there have been instances of new policy programs being introduced without an RIA.
The Treasury’s RIA guidelines outline a structured process for conducting RIAs, emphasizing the need to analyze the economic, environmental, social and regulatory impacts of proposed policies or regulations. The guidelines also recommend involving stakeholders to gather empirical information, insights and perspectives on how proposed regulatory changes might affect them. Moreover, the Treasury guidelines state that the results of RIAs should be made available to the public.
A 2021 OECD report ranks New Zealand’s RIA process above the OECD average, highlighting stakeholder consultation and the publication of impact assessments online as particular strengths. However, the report also notes that RIA practices would benefit from a more systematic approach to notifying stakeholders of upcoming opportunities to contribute to regulatory proposals (OECD 2021).
Assessing the direct impact of regulatory impact assessments on legislative changes is challenging, as these changes are not explicitly documented or systematically tracked. Although RIAs play a crucial role in the policymaking process, the extent to which they lead to legislative modifications may depend on various factors, such as whether RIAs are covered by major news outlets. For instance, the negative expert opinions expressed in the RIA of Labour’s Three Waters proposal were widely reported in the media (e.g., Coughlan 2022), potentially contributing to negative public opinion and prompting the government to significantly revise its proposal. However, there have been instances of new policy programs being introduced without an RIA.
Citations:
Coughlan, T. 2022. “Three Waters: Officials warn water bills could increase ‘significantly’ without regulation.” New Zealand Herald, December 12. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/three-waters-officials-warn-water-bills-could-increase-significantly-without-regulation/X6DMKCH7KNCZNBJLNJBCVJKYYI/
Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. 2020. “Impact Analysis.” https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/impact-analysis
OECD. 2021. “New Zealand: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/new-zealand-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
The Treasury. 2017. “Regulation.” https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/regulation
Coughlan, T. 2022. “Three Waters: Officials warn water bills could increase ‘significantly’ without regulation.” New Zealand Herald, December 12. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/three-waters-officials-warn-water-bills-could-increase-significantly-without-regulation/X6DMKCH7KNCZNBJLNJBCVJKYYI/
Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. 2020. “Impact Analysis.” https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/impact-analysis
OECD. 2021. “New Zealand: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/new-zealand-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
The Treasury. 2017. “Regulation.” https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/regulation
Norway
Norway introduced a system of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) in 1985, which was last revised in 2016. The ministers and the government are jointly responsible for providing comprehensive assessments of the potential budgetary, environmental, health, and human-rights effects of their policy proposals. Consequences are to be quantified to the extent possible, including through a thorough, realistic socioeconomic analysis. A set of codified guidelines, the Instructions for Official Studies and Reports, governs the production of RIAs.
However, the ministry in charge has some discretion regarding when an RIA should be conducted. There is no formal rule establishing when a full RIA must be produced and when a less detailed assessment is sufficient. If performed, RIAs are included as a separate section in the ad hoc reports commissioned from experts or broader committees, as well as in white papers and final bills. There is no central body within the government administration that quality-controls RIAs, although each department has issued guidelines on how RIAs should be conducted. Parliament may send back a policy proposal if it regards the attached RIA as unsatisfactory. This has occurred in a number of cases.
A complete RIA is required to list private parties and interests that will be affected. While it is not legally required, it is standard procedure for policy proposals to be sent for a public hearing. In principle, any private party may comment on the proposals.
In 2017, an additional legal requirement was introduced to ensure that consideration for the environment and society is accounted for during the preparation of plans and initiatives, as well as when deciding on what conditions those plans or initiatives may be implemented.
To systematically assess the impacts of new legislation on economic activity and enterprises, and to remove “unnecessary” regulations, a separate body, The Norwegian Better Regulation Council, was established in 2015. The Council is an arms-length oversight body issuing advisory statements on proposals for new regulation of the business sector at the stage of public consultation. The goal is to contribute to the reduction of the regulatory burden on businesses and achieve overall more efficient regulation.
However, the ministry in charge has some discretion regarding when an RIA should be conducted. There is no formal rule establishing when a full RIA must be produced and when a less detailed assessment is sufficient. If performed, RIAs are included as a separate section in the ad hoc reports commissioned from experts or broader committees, as well as in white papers and final bills. There is no central body within the government administration that quality-controls RIAs, although each department has issued guidelines on how RIAs should be conducted. Parliament may send back a policy proposal if it regards the attached RIA as unsatisfactory. This has occurred in a number of cases.
A complete RIA is required to list private parties and interests that will be affected. While it is not legally required, it is standard procedure for policy proposals to be sent for a public hearing. In principle, any private party may comment on the proposals.
In 2017, an additional legal requirement was introduced to ensure that consideration for the environment and society is accounted for during the preparation of plans and initiatives, as well as when deciding on what conditions those plans or initiatives may be implemented.
To systematically assess the impacts of new legislation on economic activity and enterprises, and to remove “unnecessary” regulations, a separate body, The Norwegian Better Regulation Council, was established in 2015. The Council is an arms-length oversight body issuing advisory statements on proposals for new regulation of the business sector at the stage of public consultation. The goal is to contribute to the reduction of the regulatory burden on businesses and achieve overall more efficient regulation.
Citations:
Ministry of Climate and Environment and Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development. 2017. “Regulations on Impact Assessments.” https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/regulations-on-impact-assessments/id2573435/
Ministry of Climate and Environment and Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development. 2017. “Regulations on Impact Assessments.” https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/regulations-on-impact-assessments/id2573435/
7
Austria
Since 2013, a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) has been mandatory for all primary laws and subordinate regulations, meaning RIAs must accompany every legislative proposal. A comprehensive threshold test, introduced in 2015, determines whether a full or a simplified RIA is required for draft regulations. Approximately two-thirds of all regulations undergo a simplified RIA.
The publication of draft laws for public assessment – while legally required in many cases – is commonly practiced before votes are taken. This allows public stakeholders to comment on proposed legislation, which occurs frequently. Trade unions, economic chambers, and other institutions are regularly invited to provide comments on draft laws.
Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) are not written by sectoral experts but rather by the ministry or department preparing the draft law. Consequently, the expertise may sometimes be limited to that of the body preparing the draft law.
Currently, there is no independent body that evaluates RIA quality. The Federal Performance Management Office (FPMO) at the Federal Ministry for Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport (BMKOES) reviews the quality of all full RIAs. The FPMO publishes opinions on RIAs for primary laws and can advise civil servants to revise RIAs if they do not meet the required standards.
Since September 2017, all draft primary laws have been available on the parliamentary website, along with a short description of the legislative project and the respective regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Citizens can submit comments on the draft regulation or support comments made by others online. Since August 2021, citizens have also been able to submit comments on all legislative initiatives introduced in parliament – including government bills, as well as parliamentary and popular initiatives – during their parliamentary deliberation and support comments made by others online. Moreover, in 2018, an interactive crowdsourcing platform was launched to provide the public with an opportunity to express their views ahead of parliamentary initiatives. Nevertheless, no systematic public consultations are being held.
The publication of draft laws for public assessment – while legally required in many cases – is commonly practiced before votes are taken. This allows public stakeholders to comment on proposed legislation, which occurs frequently. Trade unions, economic chambers, and other institutions are regularly invited to provide comments on draft laws.
Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) are not written by sectoral experts but rather by the ministry or department preparing the draft law. Consequently, the expertise may sometimes be limited to that of the body preparing the draft law.
Currently, there is no independent body that evaluates RIA quality. The Federal Performance Management Office (FPMO) at the Federal Ministry for Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport (BMKOES) reviews the quality of all full RIAs. The FPMO publishes opinions on RIAs for primary laws and can advise civil servants to revise RIAs if they do not meet the required standards.
Since September 2017, all draft primary laws have been available on the parliamentary website, along with a short description of the legislative project and the respective regulatory impact assessment (RIA). Citizens can submit comments on the draft regulation or support comments made by others online. Since August 2021, citizens have also been able to submit comments on all legislative initiatives introduced in parliament – including government bills, as well as parliamentary and popular initiatives – during their parliamentary deliberation and support comments made by others online. Moreover, in 2018, an interactive crowdsourcing platform was launched to provide the public with an opportunity to express their views ahead of parliamentary initiatives. Nevertheless, no systematic public consultations are being held.
Citations:
https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/austria-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/austria-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
Czechia
According to government legislative rules and partly based on the implementation of EU law, regulatory impact assessments (RIA) are applied in principle to all generally binding regulations prepared by ministries and other central administrative authorities. A standard RIA methodology, refined over time, guides this process. Ministries submit RIA reports to the RIA unit at the Office of the Government for formal review, followed by more extensive scrutiny by the independent RIA board. RIA commission members also participate in discussions on selected regulatory drafts during Legislative Council of the Government meetings. The RIA unit provides methodological guidance and organizes workshops and seminars for civil servants who prepare impact assessments. Internationally, the RIA Commission participates in the activities of the RegWatchEurope platform.
In practice, much government legislation is exempt from RIA assessment if it does not change regulations or is not proposed by the government. In 2022, 32 out of 108 draft laws were investigated, with 18 proposed laws and two government decrees subjected to a full assessment. Fourteen of these laws were approved, often with many criticisms and suggestions for improvement. In six cases, the verdict was that the draft should be dropped. There is no comprehensive report on subsequent actions following criticisms or proposals to drop a draft. However, past practice shows little significant change to legislation that is finally passed.
In January 2023, the government approved draft amendments to the government legislative rules, the General Principles for Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), and the Government Rules of Procedure. The revisions mainly concern Family Impact Assessment, Territorial Impact Assessment, and Digital Impact Assessment. The changes for family impact place greater emphasis on this area, requiring a separate box to be filled in and an assessment of impacts on different kinds of families and children’s rights. The territorial theme involves identifying specific impacts on specific regions and determining whether a new regulation conflicts with regional strategies for sustainability, including climate change policies and air pollution goals, as referenced in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. These additions should be treated with equal weight to any other item in an RIA. The changes took effect on February 1, 2023, and were implemented after March 31, 2023. The RIA Commission met eight times in both 2022 and 2023. In the government’s legislative plan for 2024, 48% of items indicated an obligation to carry out an RIA.
In practice, much government legislation is exempt from RIA assessment if it does not change regulations or is not proposed by the government. In 2022, 32 out of 108 draft laws were investigated, with 18 proposed laws and two government decrees subjected to a full assessment. Fourteen of these laws were approved, often with many criticisms and suggestions for improvement. In six cases, the verdict was that the draft should be dropped. There is no comprehensive report on subsequent actions following criticisms or proposals to drop a draft. However, past practice shows little significant change to legislation that is finally passed.
In January 2023, the government approved draft amendments to the government legislative rules, the General Principles for Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), and the Government Rules of Procedure. The revisions mainly concern Family Impact Assessment, Territorial Impact Assessment, and Digital Impact Assessment. The changes for family impact place greater emphasis on this area, requiring a separate box to be filled in and an assessment of impacts on different kinds of families and children’s rights. The territorial theme involves identifying specific impacts on specific regions and determining whether a new regulation conflicts with regional strategies for sustainability, including climate change policies and air pollution goals, as referenced in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. These additions should be treated with equal weight to any other item in an RIA. The changes took effect on February 1, 2023, and were implemented after March 31, 2023. The RIA Commission met eight times in both 2022 and 2023. In the government’s legislative plan for 2024, 48% of items indicated an obligation to carry out an RIA.
Citations:
https://ria.vlada.cz/
https://ria.vlada.cz/
Spain
Spain lacks an independent body that periodically evaluates the quality of the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) process. However, since 2018, the Office on Regulatory Coordination and Quality within the Ministry of the Presidency has been responsible for ensuring the quality, coordination, and coherence of executive rule-making activities. Additionally, a Report of Regulatory Impact Analysis was established in 2017, managed by the Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Function, to anticipate the impact of executive initiatives in terms of budget, competences, and gender. These innovations, however, focus more on technical issues than on substantive policy or societal impact assessments.
The Office on Regulatory Coordination and Quality oversees the implementation of better regulation requirements and facilitates secure communication with ministerial departments. The Ministry of Territorial Policy reviews the quality of various RIA components with the autonomous communities and oversees public consultation and participation processes. This ministry also promotes and monitors the reduction of administrative burdens and public consultations.
Other line ministries have specific units for impact analysis, such as the Directorate General for Environmental Quality and Assessment at the Ministry for Ecological Transition. The Council of State assesses the legality and development of regulations, monitors the public administration’s functioning, and reviews the legal quality of regulations initiated by the executive, issuing statements in response to consultations from ministries and other state entities.
Preliminary RIAs for legal norms are sometimes developed by entities other than the executive, with special parliamentary committees or stakeholders occasionally involved in studying particular issues. However, most RIA processes rely on internal ministerial resources, and the outcomes are not always made public. The Regulatory Impact Analysis Report consolidates information accompanying a regulatory project, including its impacts on socioeconomic indicators, administrative burdens, gender, public budgets, the environment, and business compliance costs. Behavioral research methods are not utilized in RIAs.
The Office on Regulatory Coordination and Quality oversees the implementation of better regulation requirements and facilitates secure communication with ministerial departments. The Ministry of Territorial Policy reviews the quality of various RIA components with the autonomous communities and oversees public consultation and participation processes. This ministry also promotes and monitors the reduction of administrative burdens and public consultations.
Other line ministries have specific units for impact analysis, such as the Directorate General for Environmental Quality and Assessment at the Ministry for Ecological Transition. The Council of State assesses the legality and development of regulations, monitors the public administration’s functioning, and reviews the legal quality of regulations initiated by the executive, issuing statements in response to consultations from ministries and other state entities.
Preliminary RIAs for legal norms are sometimes developed by entities other than the executive, with special parliamentary committees or stakeholders occasionally involved in studying particular issues. However, most RIA processes rely on internal ministerial resources, and the outcomes are not always made public. The Regulatory Impact Analysis Report consolidates information accompanying a regulatory project, including its impacts on socioeconomic indicators, administrative burdens, gender, public budgets, the environment, and business compliance costs. Behavioral research methods are not utilized in RIAs.
Citations:
Office on Regulatory Coordination and Quality – https://www.mpr.gob.es/mpr/subse/occn/paginas/index.aspx
Government of Spain. 2023. “Annual Regulatory Plan 2023.” https://transparencia.gob.es/transparencia/dam/jcr:9fdca3de-7345-4b06-8056-f318c6de9b24/PAN%202023%20(30_01_2023).pdf
Office on Regulatory Coordination and Quality – https://www.mpr.gob.es/mpr/subse/occn/paginas/index.aspx
Government of Spain. 2023. “Annual Regulatory Plan 2023.” https://transparencia.gob.es/transparencia/dam/jcr:9fdca3de-7345-4b06-8056-f318c6de9b24/PAN%202023%20(30_01_2023).pdf
Sweden
The purpose of regulatory impact analysis (RIA) is to assess the degree to which regulation has negative effects and unintended consequences for the subjects of regulation. RIAs aim to prevent increasing regulatory burdens on private firms and identify which regulatory frameworks should be abolished or simplified.
Ex ante assessments of regulatory impact have been mandatory since 2007. In the latest OECD iREG scores, Sweden ranks slightly below the OECD average for primary laws and subordinate regulations (OECD, 2021).
A 2022 memorandum from the Department of Finance suggests changes in how RIAs are conducted, based on criticism of the existing process, including a complicated regulatory framework fragmented across various pieces of legislation. Criticisms include that RIAs come too late in the process – when solutions are already formulated – a lack of competence and a failure to scientifically consider causal mechanisms between measures and their impact, and the limited scope of RIAs. The memorandum proposes legislative changes to incorporate RIAs into the work of public agencies when they issue ordinances and advice to the public, as well as in the commissions of inquiry that result in proposals for legislative change (Government Offices of Sweden, 2022). This memorandum was in the referral phase at the time of writing this report.
Ex ante assessments of regulatory impact have been mandatory since 2007. In the latest OECD iREG scores, Sweden ranks slightly below the OECD average for primary laws and subordinate regulations (OECD, 2021).
A 2022 memorandum from the Department of Finance suggests changes in how RIAs are conducted, based on criticism of the existing process, including a complicated regulatory framework fragmented across various pieces of legislation. Criticisms include that RIAs come too late in the process – when solutions are already formulated – a lack of competence and a failure to scientifically consider causal mechanisms between measures and their impact, and the limited scope of RIAs. The memorandum proposes legislative changes to incorporate RIAs into the work of public agencies when they issue ordinances and advice to the public, as well as in the commissions of inquiry that result in proposals for legislative change (Government Offices of Sweden, 2022). This memorandum was in the referral phase at the time of writing this report.
Citations:
OECD. 2021. “Sweden: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/sweden-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
Government Offices of Sweden. 2022. Bättre konsekvensutredingar. Ds 2022:22 https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/departementsserien-och-promemorior/2022/08/ds-202222/
OECD. 2021. “Sweden: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/sweden-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
Government Offices of Sweden. 2022. Bättre konsekvensutredingar. Ds 2022:22 https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/departementsserien-och-promemorior/2022/08/ds-202222/
Switzerland
There is no formal institution responsible for ex ante impact assessment in Switzerland. Article 170 of the constitution states that “the federal parliament shall ensure that the efficacy of measures taken by the confederation is evaluated.” In some ministries, such as the Department of Economic Affairs, individual units occasionally perform systematic and encompassing ex ante impact assessments. Furthermore, ex ante evaluations by the administration always include checks for consistency with existing law (performed by the Department of Justice) and compatibility with EU regulations, and if necessary, an analysis of budget implications, probable administrative costs and personnel requirements. Ex post evaluations are also frequently performed; however, it is unclear whether the results of these analyses have any substantial effect on implementation.
In a 2011 study, Sager and Rissi argue that “the meager impact and success of the RIA is due to its institutional context, namely Swiss semi-direct referendum democracy. Direct-democratic involvement and the division of power in the course of consensual government are both great barriers for effective policy appraisal.”
Beyond these processes, functional equivalents of impact assessments do exist. First, expert commissions that draft or suggest laws also evaluate alternatives while examining the potential impacts, benefits and problems associated with proposed solutions. Second, and probably more important, is the so-called consultation procedure derived from Article 147 of the constitution. This article stipulates that “the cantons, the political parties and the interested circles shall be heard in the course of the preparation of important legislation and other projects of substantial impact, and on important international treaties.” As a consequence, all those who are affected by a planned law have a constitutional right to give their opinion as to its pros and cons. This has been emphasized recently in a report written by collaborators of the OECD (Arndt-Bascle et al. 2022).
From a comparative perspective, Switzerland was a relative latecomer to performance-management policies, as were Germany and Austria. It was only in 2011 that the federal administration decided to implement some form of performance management on a consistent basis.
In 2016, a report by the Federal Audit Office criticized RIA praxis in Switzerland, arguing that it did not fully comply with the formal requirements for RIA. This critique led to a political debate about whether the federal administration had deliberately misinformed the parliament. In the course of this debate, the widespread neglect of RIA by politicians was largely ignored. In December 2018, the Federal Council emphasized the need to improve RIAs by optimizing existing processes without creating new institutions. In a recent report, the OECD noted that, while there has been no significant improvement, Switzerland has made some adjustments by reforming “its regulatory policy framework in 2019, in particular through the issuing of new regulatory impact assessment (RIA) directives by the Federal Council. The requirement for RIA to be conducted for all regulations in Switzerland has been refined with a ‘quick check’ procedure and additional consideration for proportionality; however this does not mean that RIA is done in an encompassing and systematic manner. All regulations must undergo a preliminary RIA, which will allow identifying regulations to be subject to an in-depth assessment. A threshold test, based on quantitative and qualitative criteria, is applied to determine whether a regulation should be subject to a simplified or full RIA. The obligation to quantify regulatory costs has been extended and systematized, such as for all new regulations which cause additional regulatory costs for more than 1,000 companies or which place a particular burden on an economic sector. Switzerland focuses less on quantifying benefits and costs of regulations to citizens” (OECD 2021: 286; Arndt-Bascle et al. 2022).
While stakeholder participation in regulatory impact assessment (RIA) procedures is a particularly strong point in Switzerland, communication processes vary between regions and policy fields. For in-depth RIA, an extended version of standard RIA, Rissi and Sager (2013) show how procedural assessments used to be the most prominent form of RIA utilized in Switzerland. RIA is often outsourced to independent research companies, though this does not affect utilization. In the course of the debate about the Federal Audit Office report on the quality of RIA, an independent Regulation Assessment Unit was demanded by some politicians. However, this proposal has yet to be made concrete. Several cantons have adopted sector-specific tools of regulatory assessment, such as regulatory health impact assessments (Plateforme EIS).
In a 2011 study, Sager and Rissi argue that “the meager impact and success of the RIA is due to its institutional context, namely Swiss semi-direct referendum democracy. Direct-democratic involvement and the division of power in the course of consensual government are both great barriers for effective policy appraisal.”
Beyond these processes, functional equivalents of impact assessments do exist. First, expert commissions that draft or suggest laws also evaluate alternatives while examining the potential impacts, benefits and problems associated with proposed solutions. Second, and probably more important, is the so-called consultation procedure derived from Article 147 of the constitution. This article stipulates that “the cantons, the political parties and the interested circles shall be heard in the course of the preparation of important legislation and other projects of substantial impact, and on important international treaties.” As a consequence, all those who are affected by a planned law have a constitutional right to give their opinion as to its pros and cons. This has been emphasized recently in a report written by collaborators of the OECD (Arndt-Bascle et al. 2022).
From a comparative perspective, Switzerland was a relative latecomer to performance-management policies, as were Germany and Austria. It was only in 2011 that the federal administration decided to implement some form of performance management on a consistent basis.
In 2016, a report by the Federal Audit Office criticized RIA praxis in Switzerland, arguing that it did not fully comply with the formal requirements for RIA. This critique led to a political debate about whether the federal administration had deliberately misinformed the parliament. In the course of this debate, the widespread neglect of RIA by politicians was largely ignored. In December 2018, the Federal Council emphasized the need to improve RIAs by optimizing existing processes without creating new institutions. In a recent report, the OECD noted that, while there has been no significant improvement, Switzerland has made some adjustments by reforming “its regulatory policy framework in 2019, in particular through the issuing of new regulatory impact assessment (RIA) directives by the Federal Council. The requirement for RIA to be conducted for all regulations in Switzerland has been refined with a ‘quick check’ procedure and additional consideration for proportionality; however this does not mean that RIA is done in an encompassing and systematic manner. All regulations must undergo a preliminary RIA, which will allow identifying regulations to be subject to an in-depth assessment. A threshold test, based on quantitative and qualitative criteria, is applied to determine whether a regulation should be subject to a simplified or full RIA. The obligation to quantify regulatory costs has been extended and systematized, such as for all new regulations which cause additional regulatory costs for more than 1,000 companies or which place a particular burden on an economic sector. Switzerland focuses less on quantifying benefits and costs of regulations to citizens” (OECD 2021: 286; Arndt-Bascle et al. 2022).
While stakeholder participation in regulatory impact assessment (RIA) procedures is a particularly strong point in Switzerland, communication processes vary between regions and policy fields. For in-depth RIA, an extended version of standard RIA, Rissi and Sager (2013) show how procedural assessments used to be the most prominent form of RIA utilized in Switzerland. RIA is often outsourced to independent research companies, though this does not affect utilization. In the course of the debate about the Federal Audit Office report on the quality of RIA, an independent Regulation Assessment Unit was demanded by some politicians. However, this proposal has yet to be made concrete. Several cantons have adopted sector-specific tools of regulatory assessment, such as regulatory health impact assessments (Plateforme EIS).
Citations:
Arndt-Bascle, Christiane, Paul Davidson, and Marie-Gabrielle de Liedekerke. 2022. “Wie man schlaue Regulierungen findet.” Die Volkswirtschaft 1–2: 39-42.
EFK [Eidgenössische Finanzkontrolle]. 2016. Prognosen in den Botschaften des Bundesrates, Evaluation der prospektiven Folgenabschätzungen von Gesetzesentwürfen. Bern.
Plateforme EIS: https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_016D388FAC60.P001/REF.pdf
Sager, Fritz, and Christof Rissi. 2011. “The Limited Scope of Policy Appraisal in the Context of Referendum Democracy: The Case of Regulatory Impact Assessment in Switzerland.” Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice 17(2): 151-164.
Sager, Fritz. 2017. “Regulierungsfolgenabschätzung (RFA): Prognosen und Kompromisse.” Neue Zürcher Zeitung, February 14.
OECD. 2021. Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021. Paris: OECD.
Christof, Rissi, and Fritz Sager. 2013. “Types of Knowledge Utilization of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). Evidence from Swiss Policymaking.” Regulation & Governance 7(3): 348–364.
Arndt-Bascle, Christiane, Paul Davidson, and Marie-Gabrielle de Liedekerke. 2022. “Wie man schlaue Regulierungen findet.” Die Volkswirtschaft 1–2: 39-42.
EFK [Eidgenössische Finanzkontrolle]. 2016. Prognosen in den Botschaften des Bundesrates, Evaluation der prospektiven Folgenabschätzungen von Gesetzesentwürfen. Bern.
Plateforme EIS: https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_016D388FAC60.P001/REF.pdf
Sager, Fritz, and Christof Rissi. 2011. “The Limited Scope of Policy Appraisal in the Context of Referendum Democracy: The Case of Regulatory Impact Assessment in Switzerland.” Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice 17(2): 151-164.
Sager, Fritz. 2017. “Regulierungsfolgenabschätzung (RFA): Prognosen und Kompromisse.” Neue Zürcher Zeitung, February 14.
OECD. 2021. Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021. Paris: OECD.
Christof, Rissi, and Fritz Sager. 2013. “Types of Knowledge Utilization of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). Evidence from Swiss Policymaking.” Regulation & Governance 7(3): 348–364.
UK
In line with the government’s Better Regulation Framework, updated in September 2023, Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) typically accompany all UK government regulatory interventions that affect the private sector, civil society organizations, and public services. The objective of RIAs is to assess the benefits and burdens of planned measures. Provisions exist to account for the impacts of UK-wide legislation on devolved administrations. There is also an obligation to produce a post-implementation review to verify the accuracy of RIA estimates, fulfillment of predictions, and achievement of intended policy outcomes. A standard template and additional guidance are available for completing RIAs. RIAs are independently scrutinized by the Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC), and each department has a better regulation unit.
In 2018, the threshold for conducting a full RIA was raised from effects exceeding £1 million to £5 million. Consequently, the number of RIAs carried out fell from a peak of 664 in 2011 to an average of 175 annually in the three years preceding the pandemic. The RPC report for 2022–2023 notes that it “reviewed 109 submissions from 23 different departments, agencies, and public bodies. This remains in line with the typical number of cases submitted to the RPC for scrutiny over the past five years.” Historically, the largest number of RIAs were for the departments responsible for business, transport, and the environment. The use of RIAs was particularly inconsistent during the politically charged Brexit process, with the government resisting pressure to release all relevant documentation in a timely manner.
Academic research has questioned the value of these assessments, as their results are not systematically integrated into the decision-making process. However, RIAs are certainly applied. Both the RPC and a House of Lords inquiry published in October 2022 criticized the variable quality of RIAs and delays in producing them. The Lords’ report bluntly stated: “unfortunately, this improvement has not survived the dual challenges of Brexit and the pandemic, during which time the speed of legislating meant that corners were cut. We had hoped that the return to more normal working would provide an opportunity not just to reinstate the previous IA system but to improve it: this has not happened.” The RPC found “an alarming increase in the number of impact assessments (IAs) that have been red-rated as ‘not fit for purpose’” and noted “a significant increase in the number of IAs submitted late to the RPC – in some cases when the legislation was already before Parliament. This undermines the purpose of the Better Regulation Framework in allowing us to inform parliamentarians of the robustness of the evidence supporting regulatory proposals.”
In summary, despite a sound system for assessing the impact of regulatory proposals, implementation difficulties have detracted from its effectiveness. The title of the Lords’ report is telling: “Losing Impact: Why the Government’s Impact Assessment System Is Failing Parliament and the Public.”
In 2018, the threshold for conducting a full RIA was raised from effects exceeding £1 million to £5 million. Consequently, the number of RIAs carried out fell from a peak of 664 in 2011 to an average of 175 annually in the three years preceding the pandemic. The RPC report for 2022–2023 notes that it “reviewed 109 submissions from 23 different departments, agencies, and public bodies. This remains in line with the typical number of cases submitted to the RPC for scrutiny over the past five years.” Historically, the largest number of RIAs were for the departments responsible for business, transport, and the environment. The use of RIAs was particularly inconsistent during the politically charged Brexit process, with the government resisting pressure to release all relevant documentation in a timely manner.
Academic research has questioned the value of these assessments, as their results are not systematically integrated into the decision-making process. However, RIAs are certainly applied. Both the RPC and a House of Lords inquiry published in October 2022 criticized the variable quality of RIAs and delays in producing them. The Lords’ report bluntly stated: “unfortunately, this improvement has not survived the dual challenges of Brexit and the pandemic, during which time the speed of legislating meant that corners were cut. We had hoped that the return to more normal working would provide an opportunity not just to reinstate the previous IA system but to improve it: this has not happened.” The RPC found “an alarming increase in the number of impact assessments (IAs) that have been red-rated as ‘not fit for purpose’” and noted “a significant increase in the number of IAs submitted late to the RPC – in some cases when the legislation was already before Parliament. This undermines the purpose of the Better Regulation Framework in allowing us to inform parliamentarians of the robustness of the evidence supporting regulatory proposals.”
In summary, despite a sound system for assessing the impact of regulatory proposals, implementation difficulties have detracted from its effectiveness. The title of the Lords’ report is telling: “Losing Impact: Why the Government’s Impact Assessment System Is Failing Parliament and the Public.”
Citations:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/652fa291d86b1b00143a5183/RPC_Corporate_Report_2023_-_Final.pdf
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/30141/documents/174647/default/
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/652fa291d86b1b00143a5183/RPC_Corporate_Report_2023_-_Final.pdf
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/30141/documents/174647/default/
USA
There is no statutory legal requirement for the use of Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) for new legislation. However, executive orders and agency guidelines encourage the use of RIAs, especially as part of the executive rule-making process (Jacobs 2007).
Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12291 in 1981 was the first attempt to use RIAs systematically to improve regulatory outcomes in the federal government (Harrison 2009). In 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, titled “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This executive order requires all federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of significant regulatory actions (Hahn et al. 1999). Agencies are encouraged to take a systematic and consistent approach to regulatory planning and review.
In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issues guidance to agencies on how they should conduct RIAs, especially when it comes to assessing the economic impacts of their proposed legislation (Kirkpatrick and Parker, 2010). OMB Circular-4 sets out this information. The OMB contains the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), to which agencies must submit their RIA. OIRA evaluates the quality of these RIAs and may provide feedback. This helps ensure consistency across departments.
There are limitations with this approach, however. Some agencies have limited resources to conduct comprehensive RIAs, which affects the depth and rigor of these documents. Uniform standards are not possible in all contexts, so a degree of subjectivity is inevitable.
Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12291 in 1981 was the first attempt to use RIAs systematically to improve regulatory outcomes in the federal government (Harrison 2009). In 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, titled “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This executive order requires all federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of significant regulatory actions (Hahn et al. 1999). Agencies are encouraged to take a systematic and consistent approach to regulatory planning and review.
In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issues guidance to agencies on how they should conduct RIAs, especially when it comes to assessing the economic impacts of their proposed legislation (Kirkpatrick and Parker, 2010). OMB Circular-4 sets out this information. The OMB contains the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), to which agencies must submit their RIA. OIRA evaluates the quality of these RIAs and may provide feedback. This helps ensure consistency across departments.
There are limitations with this approach, however. Some agencies have limited resources to conduct comprehensive RIAs, which affects the depth and rigor of these documents. Uniform standards are not possible in all contexts, so a degree of subjectivity is inevitable.
Citations:
Robert Hahn, Jason Burnett, Yee-Ho Chan, Elizabeth Mader, and Peter Moyle. 1999. “Assessing Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Failure of Agencies to Comply with Executive Order 12866.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
Scott Jacobs. 2007. “Current Trends in the Process and Methods of Regulatory Impact Assessment: Mainstreaming RIA into Policy Processes.” In Regulatory Impact Assessment: Towards Better Regulation?, eds. D. Parker and C. Kirkpatrick. Elgar.
Colin Kirkpatrick and David Parker. 2004. “Regulatory Impact Assessment: An Overview.” Public Money and Management.
Robert Hahn, Jason Burnett, Yee-Ho Chan, Elizabeth Mader, and Peter Moyle. 1999. “Assessing Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Failure of Agencies to Comply with Executive Order 12866.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
Scott Jacobs. 2007. “Current Trends in the Process and Methods of Regulatory Impact Assessment: Mainstreaming RIA into Policy Processes.” In Regulatory Impact Assessment: Towards Better Regulation?, eds. D. Parker and C. Kirkpatrick. Elgar.
Colin Kirkpatrick and David Parker. 2004. “Regulatory Impact Assessment: An Overview.” Public Money and Management.
6
Australia
The Australian government provides a detailed framework for impact assessments and encourages its use, though it is not a legal requirement for new legislation. Regulatory impact statements (RIS) are notionally required for significant regulatory proposals. An RIS provides a formal assessment of the costs and benefits of a regulatory proposal and alternative options for that proposal, followed by a recommendation supporting the most effective and efficient option. RISs are thus not assessments of the socioeconomic impacts of regulatory proposals, although such impacts are implicitly taken into account as part of the process. In recent years, 75% to 85% of all Australian government proposals with “significant” impacts have been subject to a RIS. However, this proportion has been lower for proposals with “highly significant” impacts. Political considerations – including a party’s policy commitments, the preferences of the relevant minister, the influence of interest groups, and public opinion – appear to matter at least as much, if not more, than strict evidence-based decision-making.
To support the performance and uptake of systematic regulatory impact assessments, the government has established the Office of Impact Analysis (OIA) within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (OIA 2023). The OIA supports departments to undertake evidence-based assessments of policy issues, providing support (including training) to help departments create rigorous impact assessments, and to efficiently implement the learnings from such reviews. As a hub for developing impact analysis practices, it also engages with international organizations like the OECD to develop best practices.
To support the performance and uptake of systematic regulatory impact assessments, the government has established the Office of Impact Analysis (OIA) within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (OIA 2023). The OIA supports departments to undertake evidence-based assessments of policy issues, providing support (including training) to help departments create rigorous impact assessments, and to efficiently implement the learnings from such reviews. As a hub for developing impact analysis practices, it also engages with international organizations like the OECD to develop best practices.
Citations:
OIA. 2023. “The Office of Impact Analysis: Developing the evidence base for decision-making.”Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://oia.pmc.gov.au
OIA. 2023. “The Office of Impact Analysis: Developing the evidence base for decision-making.”Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://oia.pmc.gov.au
Greece
Since 2019, it has been a legal requirement to conduct Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) for any new legislation. As of October 2020, no bill can be submitted to parliament without an accompanying RIA. The Office for Better Regulation, part of the General Secretariat for Legal and Parliamentary Issues in the Presidency of the Government, oversees the RIA process.
While government officials are not required to involve stakeholders when preparing regulatory changes, they must upload draft legislation to the competent ministry’s website for public deliberation. This digital deliberation allows for the consideration of stakeholders’ needs and likely responses. Each ministry is required to apply uniform standards in preparing RIAs using templates and indicators provided by the Office for Better Regulation. The RIA for each bill is made publicly available on the parliament’s website.
Although there are no periodic quality evaluations of the RIA process and its results, the existing institutions and processes ensure that RIAs meet minimum standards. RIAs provide reliable information about the impacts of regulations on key socioeconomic indicators, as long as data on these indicators is available. However, the lack of data in specific policy areas can limit the full application of RIA. For example, while Greece has adequate epidemiological data, there is very little data on issues like sexual harassment, which can affect the corresponding regulations.
While government officials are not required to involve stakeholders when preparing regulatory changes, they must upload draft legislation to the competent ministry’s website for public deliberation. This digital deliberation allows for the consideration of stakeholders’ needs and likely responses. Each ministry is required to apply uniform standards in preparing RIAs using templates and indicators provided by the Office for Better Regulation. The RIA for each bill is made publicly available on the parliament’s website.
Although there are no periodic quality evaluations of the RIA process and its results, the existing institutions and processes ensure that RIAs meet minimum standards. RIAs provide reliable information about the impacts of regulations on key socioeconomic indicators, as long as data on these indicators is available. However, the lack of data in specific policy areas can limit the full application of RIA. For example, while Greece has adequate epidemiological data, there is very little data on issues like sexual harassment, which can affect the corresponding regulations.
Citations:
The legal requirement to conduct RIAs is included in Law 4622/2019.
On the Office for Better Regulation, see the website of the General Secretariat for Legal and Parliamentary Issues https://gslegal.gov.gr/?page_id=2
The website of the parliament, on which bills of law and the accompanying RIAs are uploaded, is https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/
The legal requirement to conduct RIAs is included in Law 4622/2019.
On the Office for Better Regulation, see the website of the General Secretariat for Legal and Parliamentary Issues https://gslegal.gov.gr/?page_id=2
The website of the parliament, on which bills of law and the accompanying RIAs are uploaded, is https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/
Israel
According to Government Decision No. 2118 of October 22, 2014, any new regulation must undergo a regulatory impact assessment before implementation. In 2021, the Regulatory Principal Law was passed. According to the law, regulations should be based on scientific principles and knowledge, should be transparent to the public, and involve relevant stakeholders. The law defines the process for establishing new regulations and improving existing ones.
The law also established the independent Regulation Authority. Officially created in January 2023, the authority aims to consult regulatory agencies on regulations and develop strategic regulatory planning in Israel. The authority is designed as an independent organization, and its members should include experts with relevant academic and professional experience. Currently, however, the Regulatory Authority is understaffed, with only 10 employees as of mid-2023 (Eretz 2023).
Regulatory assessments should involve relevant stakeholders and regulatory impact assessment (RIA) reports should be published online. The authority oversees the RIA process across different departments. Both the authority and departments should publish periodic reports on the regulatory process, and the departments must also introduce long-term regulatory plans to the authority.
The law requires that a RIA be conducted for any new legislation. The only exemption is if urgent regulation is needed due to prevent severe public harm. Additionally, each department must re-examine existing regulations. The authority has set specific evaluation measures for the RIA process, including both input and output goals, such as the number of new businesses opened, the number of reports submitted, the amount of money saved and changes in Israel’s ranking in international measures (e.g., PMR and IREG). Standards rely on quantitative measures and assessments based on reports provided by the agencies, excluding behavioral economic measures and techniques. The guidebook for introducing new regulation requires the use of data, scientific evidence and public deliberation when designing legislation.
Stakeholders are involved in the assessments because they provide information on RIAs. One measure of success is the percentage of evaluations conducted using public deliberation. Additionally, another measure examines the characteristics of stakeholders and the cost of compliance. RIAs are supposed to affect legislation because they include recommendations on whether to adopt the respective legislation or seek alternatives. However, an NGO that monitors these issues reports that the quality and effectiveness of RIAs vary significantly between ministries and government bodies. Evaluating government RIAs, the NGO found that in many cases there are no clear assessment criteria or systematic analysis of policy alternatives (https://rnaki.org.il/regulation-and-ria/).
The Regulatory Authority’s website publishes periodic reports, including a recent report from 2021 that maps existing challenges and gaps in regulation policy in Israel. Additionally, the annual regulatory plans of different agencies, updated for 2024, are also available on the website.
The law also established the independent Regulation Authority. Officially created in January 2023, the authority aims to consult regulatory agencies on regulations and develop strategic regulatory planning in Israel. The authority is designed as an independent organization, and its members should include experts with relevant academic and professional experience. Currently, however, the Regulatory Authority is understaffed, with only 10 employees as of mid-2023 (Eretz 2023).
Regulatory assessments should involve relevant stakeholders and regulatory impact assessment (RIA) reports should be published online. The authority oversees the RIA process across different departments. Both the authority and departments should publish periodic reports on the regulatory process, and the departments must also introduce long-term regulatory plans to the authority.
The law requires that a RIA be conducted for any new legislation. The only exemption is if urgent regulation is needed due to prevent severe public harm. Additionally, each department must re-examine existing regulations. The authority has set specific evaluation measures for the RIA process, including both input and output goals, such as the number of new businesses opened, the number of reports submitted, the amount of money saved and changes in Israel’s ranking in international measures (e.g., PMR and IREG). Standards rely on quantitative measures and assessments based on reports provided by the agencies, excluding behavioral economic measures and techniques. The guidebook for introducing new regulation requires the use of data, scientific evidence and public deliberation when designing legislation.
Stakeholders are involved in the assessments because they provide information on RIAs. One measure of success is the percentage of evaluations conducted using public deliberation. Additionally, another measure examines the characteristics of stakeholders and the cost of compliance. RIAs are supposed to affect legislation because they include recommendations on whether to adopt the respective legislation or seek alternatives. However, an NGO that monitors these issues reports that the quality and effectiveness of RIAs vary significantly between ministries and government bodies. Evaluating government RIAs, the NGO found that in many cases there are no clear assessment criteria or systematic analysis of policy alternatives (https://rnaki.org.il/regulation-and-ria/).
The Regulatory Authority’s website publishes periodic reports, including a recent report from 2021 that maps existing challenges and gaps in regulation policy in Israel. Additionally, the annual regulatory plans of different agencies, updated for 2024, are also available on the website.
Citations:
Eretz, I. 2023. “Where did the authority that was supposed to ease the cost of living in Israel go? (Hebrew).” Globes, May 23. https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001447245
Eretz, I. 2023. “Where did the authority that was supposed to ease the cost of living in Israel go? (Hebrew).” Globes, May 23. https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001447245
Latvia
All draft legislation must undergo an assessment, documented in an annotated report (ex ante) accompanying the draft to the Cabinet of Ministers and the parliament. The initial impact assessment report (annotation or ex ante assessment) informs decision-makers and stakeholders about the consequences and impact of proposed legislation. It includes assessment results and details of public participation. Annotations are developed, coordinated, and advanced through the Unified Legal Acts Development and Coordination Portal (TAP portal) and are publicly available using its embedded template.
The State Chancellery is responsible for evaluating the overall annotation, focusing on the impacts on public administration, human resources, public participation, administrative procedures, and compliance costs. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs assesses the implications for the diaspora, while the Ministry of Economy analyzes the economic impact. The Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice evaluate areas within their respective competencies. Other ministries or state agencies contribute based on their expertise. The State Chancellery also updates guidelines for initial impact assessments and annotation preparation in the TAP portal (Ministru kabinets, 2021).
The quality of annotations has varied, ranging from detailed analyses to simple summaries, without enforced standards. Additionally, with the establishment of the TAP portal and new regulations, the assessment process has been refined. It now includes a broader assessment range and more precise definitions.
The majority of draft laws (with annotations) are prepared by line ministries. However, once the draft law is submitted to parliament and goes through readings, annotations are rarely updated. Thus, the initial assessment does not reflect the final impact once the law is approved.
Practical limitations affect the full application of assessments, as they are sometimes more formal than reflective of the actual situation. For example, before significant policy changes, the ministry compiles data and analysis in an information report, which serves as the basis for legislative changes. Modern analysis methods – including those derived from behavioral research – need to be improved in assessments. Stakeholder involvement in the assessment process exists, but the extent and depth can differ across legislative changes. The communication of assessment results to the public and their availability could be more consistent; sometimes this even depends on the media, as society usually does not examine the Cabinet of Ministers’ agenda.
The State Chancellery is responsible for evaluating the overall annotation, focusing on the impacts on public administration, human resources, public participation, administrative procedures, and compliance costs. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs assesses the implications for the diaspora, while the Ministry of Economy analyzes the economic impact. The Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice evaluate areas within their respective competencies. Other ministries or state agencies contribute based on their expertise. The State Chancellery also updates guidelines for initial impact assessments and annotation preparation in the TAP portal (Ministru kabinets, 2021).
The quality of annotations has varied, ranging from detailed analyses to simple summaries, without enforced standards. Additionally, with the establishment of the TAP portal and new regulations, the assessment process has been refined. It now includes a broader assessment range and more precise definitions.
The majority of draft laws (with annotations) are prepared by line ministries. However, once the draft law is submitted to parliament and goes through readings, annotations are rarely updated. Thus, the initial assessment does not reflect the final impact once the law is approved.
Practical limitations affect the full application of assessments, as they are sometimes more formal than reflective of the actual situation. For example, before significant policy changes, the ministry compiles data and analysis in an information report, which serves as the basis for legislative changes. Modern analysis methods – including those derived from behavioral research – need to be improved in assessments. Stakeholder involvement in the assessment process exists, but the extent and depth can differ across legislative changes. The communication of assessment results to the public and their availability could be more consistent; sometimes this even depends on the media, as society usually does not examine the Cabinet of Ministers’ agenda.
Citations:
Ministru kabinets. 2021. Ministru kabineta noteikumu Nr. 617 Tiesību akta projekta sākotnējas ietekmes izvērtēšanas kārtība. https://likumi.lv/ta/id/325945-tiesibu-akta-projekta-sakotnejas-ietekmes-izvertesanas-kartiba
European Commission, Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support, Mackie, I., Fobé, E., Škarica, M., Reinholde, I., et al. 2022. “Evidence-Informed Policy Making: Building a Conceptual Model and Developing Indicators.” Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2887/81339
Laganovskis, G. 2020. “Anotācija izsaka likuma būtību, taču var arī maldināt.” https://lvportals.lv/norises/321249-anotacija-izsaka-likuma-butibu-tacu-var-ari-maldinat-2020
Mikuda, S. 2023. “Ilgtspējības princips likumdošanā – kā to panākt.” https://lvportals.lv/norises/347819-ilgtspejibas-princips-likumdosana-ka-to-panakt-2023
Ministru kabinets. 2021. Ministru kabineta noteikumu Nr. 617 Tiesību akta projekta sākotnējas ietekmes izvērtēšanas kārtība. https://likumi.lv/ta/id/325945-tiesibu-akta-projekta-sakotnejas-ietekmes-izvertesanas-kartiba
European Commission, Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support, Mackie, I., Fobé, E., Škarica, M., Reinholde, I., et al. 2022. “Evidence-Informed Policy Making: Building a Conceptual Model and Developing Indicators.” Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2887/81339
Laganovskis, G. 2020. “Anotācija izsaka likuma būtību, taču var arī maldināt.” https://lvportals.lv/norises/321249-anotacija-izsaka-likuma-butibu-tacu-var-ari-maldinat-2020
Mikuda, S. 2023. “Ilgtspējības princips likumdošanā – kā to panākt.” https://lvportals.lv/norises/347819-ilgtspejibas-princips-likumdosana-ka-to-panakt-2023
Slovenia
In 2019, the government adopted an Action Plan to improve the process of planning, preparing, adopting, and evaluating the impact of 2019 – 2022 legislation. The plan extends the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) guide to cover the assessment of non-financial impacts and recommends the introduction of preliminary impact assessments along with a more in-depth analysis of potential social and environmental impacts.
The Court of Audit has published a series of three audit reports entitled “Are we checking the impact of the proposed regulations on society in Slovenia” (RIA 1-2007, RIA 2-2012, RIA 3-2021). The Court of Audit has been continuously auditing the drafting, adoption, and monitoring of regulations since 2004. Its last report was published in 2021, assessing that between May 31, 2012, and June 30, 2018, the government was partially effective in regulating the area of implementing analyses of the impact of regulations on society.
In 2021, the OECD prepared the Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021 for Slovenia. The report assessed that RIA is carried out for all primary laws and some subordinate regulations. The impact assessment requirements for subordinate legislation are less stringent than those for primary laws. The RIA process, especially for subordinate regulations, could be strengthened by introducing a threshold test or proportionality criteria to determine which regulations require in-depth scrutiny.
The Court of Audit has published a series of three audit reports entitled “Are we checking the impact of the proposed regulations on society in Slovenia” (RIA 1-2007, RIA 2-2012, RIA 3-2021). The Court of Audit has been continuously auditing the drafting, adoption, and monitoring of regulations since 2004. Its last report was published in 2021, assessing that between May 31, 2012, and June 30, 2018, the government was partially effective in regulating the area of implementing analyses of the impact of regulations on society.
In 2021, the OECD prepared the Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021 for Slovenia. The report assessed that RIA is carried out for all primary laws and some subordinate regulations. The impact assessment requirements for subordinate legislation are less stringent than those for primary laws. The RIA process, especially for subordinate regulations, could be strengthened by introducing a threshold test or proportionality criteria to determine which regulations require in-depth scrutiny.
Citations:
OECD. 2018. “Regulatory Policy in the Republic of Slovenia.” https://www.stopbirokraciji.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/mju/Boljsi_predpisi/Novice/Regulatorna_politika_v_Sloveniji_koncno_porocilo.pdf
Računsko sodišče. 2021. “Ali v Sloveniji preverjamo učinke predlaganih predpisov na družbo.” https://www.rs-rs.si/revizije-in-revidiranje/arhiv-revizij/revizija/spremembe-na-podrocju-analize-ucinkov-predlaganih-predpisov-od-izdaje-zadnjega-ria-porocila-in-prika/
Računsko sodišče. 2021. “Ali v Sloveniji preverjamo učinke predlaganih predpisov na družbo.” https://www.rs-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Datoteke/Revizije/2021/RIA3/RIA_3_GlavnoPorocilo_RevizijskoP.pdf
OECD. 2021. “Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021.” https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/fr/governance/oecd-regulatory-policy-outlook-2021_3ebf1de2-en
OECD. 2018. “Regulatory Policy in the Republic of Slovenia.” https://www.stopbirokraciji.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/mju/Boljsi_predpisi/Novice/Regulatorna_politika_v_Sloveniji_koncno_porocilo.pdf
Računsko sodišče. 2021. “Ali v Sloveniji preverjamo učinke predlaganih predpisov na družbo.” https://www.rs-rs.si/revizije-in-revidiranje/arhiv-revizij/revizija/spremembe-na-podrocju-analize-ucinkov-predlaganih-predpisov-od-izdaje-zadnjega-ria-porocila-in-prika/
Računsko sodišče. 2021. “Ali v Sloveniji preverjamo učinke predlaganih predpisov na družbo.” https://www.rs-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Datoteke/Revizije/2021/RIA3/RIA_3_GlavnoPorocilo_RevizijskoP.pdf
OECD. 2021. “Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021.” https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/fr/governance/oecd-regulatory-policy-outlook-2021_3ebf1de2-en
Netherlands
(In this text, “regulatory impact assessment” has the meaning of “all modes of ex ante, contemporaneous and ex post policy evaluation.”) In recent years the Dutch government has written mainstream public administration and policy analysis insights into law in the form of one synthesizing policy evaluation system (the Rijksbreed evaluatiestelsel).
According to Article 3.3 of the Compatibility Law (CW), parliamentarians and ministers are responsible for the effectiveness and efficiency of the financial management of tax resources. Article 3.1 requires that government policy proposals should include an explanation of 1) the objectives being pursued, along with their effectiveness and efficiency; 2) the policy instruments to be used; and 3) the financial impact on the state and, where possible, the financial impact on sectors of society. Specially, since 1 November 2021, policy proposals costing more than €20 million have been required to include an explanation of the policy goals, instruments, effectiveness, and intended monitoring and evaluation instruments, at the request of the House of Representatives.
Stakeholder involvement is preferable; it is ingrained in the Dutch “polder” culture, and (perhaps) therefore not legally required. Stakeholders are the governmental and no-governmental organizations that constitute the policy network around a particular policy issue, as shown by everyday practice or through a force-field analysis (see also “Civil Society”). To ensure that MPs see them, the results of this analytic exercise in policy formulation are to be included in the main text of the bill as proposed to parliament. Scientific standards are imposed by the Knowledge Center for Policy and Regulation (KCBR). Faithful to mainstream public administration and policy analysis, this organization’s Policy Compass recommends paying attention to the reason for the policy proposal, the problem description, the objectives and the need for the proposal. It also asks for a “golden oldie” from public administration: the policy theory, or “the set of assumptions and research results on which the conclusion can be based.” There are also uniform rules for conducting a societal cost-benefit analysis.
Commissioned by the Ministry of Finance, which is legally tasked with supervising all financial activities carried out by other departments, “Policy Choices Explained CW3.1” was evaluated in 2020. Results were doubly disappointing. Departmental policymakers indicated that lawmakers paid little attention to the information provided, which makes the policy framework a compulsory check-box exercise. Policymakers engage in “fiction writing” – that is, they justify policy choices with “technical arguments” that in fact had little or no place in the actual decision-making process. Parliamentarians admit that they often do not focus first on effectiveness and efficiency; rather, their own political priorities take pride of place. Sadly but wisely, the evaluators concluded: “The extent to which political ambitions and effectiveness of concrete policy instruments are linked in the political debate could perhaps be greater than it is now.” It may be assumed this judgment holds for later years as well.
On the bright side, there are plans to include the concept of “broader prosperity” (“brede welvaart”) in the system outlined in the Policy Choices Explained CW3.1 document. The new Policy Compass tool can help with this, as it contains guidelines for the application of the broader prosperity goal and public values in policy preparation. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations are also involved.
According to Article 3.3 of the Compatibility Law (CW), parliamentarians and ministers are responsible for the effectiveness and efficiency of the financial management of tax resources. Article 3.1 requires that government policy proposals should include an explanation of 1) the objectives being pursued, along with their effectiveness and efficiency; 2) the policy instruments to be used; and 3) the financial impact on the state and, where possible, the financial impact on sectors of society. Specially, since 1 November 2021, policy proposals costing more than €20 million have been required to include an explanation of the policy goals, instruments, effectiveness, and intended monitoring and evaluation instruments, at the request of the House of Representatives.
Stakeholder involvement is preferable; it is ingrained in the Dutch “polder” culture, and (perhaps) therefore not legally required. Stakeholders are the governmental and no-governmental organizations that constitute the policy network around a particular policy issue, as shown by everyday practice or through a force-field analysis (see also “Civil Society”). To ensure that MPs see them, the results of this analytic exercise in policy formulation are to be included in the main text of the bill as proposed to parliament. Scientific standards are imposed by the Knowledge Center for Policy and Regulation (KCBR). Faithful to mainstream public administration and policy analysis, this organization’s Policy Compass recommends paying attention to the reason for the policy proposal, the problem description, the objectives and the need for the proposal. It also asks for a “golden oldie” from public administration: the policy theory, or “the set of assumptions and research results on which the conclusion can be based.” There are also uniform rules for conducting a societal cost-benefit analysis.
Commissioned by the Ministry of Finance, which is legally tasked with supervising all financial activities carried out by other departments, “Policy Choices Explained CW3.1” was evaluated in 2020. Results were doubly disappointing. Departmental policymakers indicated that lawmakers paid little attention to the information provided, which makes the policy framework a compulsory check-box exercise. Policymakers engage in “fiction writing” – that is, they justify policy choices with “technical arguments” that in fact had little or no place in the actual decision-making process. Parliamentarians admit that they often do not focus first on effectiveness and efficiency; rather, their own political priorities take pride of place. Sadly but wisely, the evaluators concluded: “The extent to which political ambitions and effectiveness of concrete policy instruments are linked in the political debate could perhaps be greater than it is now.” It may be assumed this judgment holds for later years as well.
On the bright side, there are plans to include the concept of “broader prosperity” (“brede welvaart”) in the system outlined in the Policy Choices Explained CW3.1 document. The new Policy Compass tool can help with this, as it contains guidelines for the application of the broader prosperity goal and public values in policy preparation. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations are also involved.
Citations:
Ministerie van FIN. 2024. “Evaluatiestelsel.” rijksfinancien.nl.
LinkedIn, Van der Knaap. Alles over beleidsevaluatie anno 2023 bij de Rijksoverheid…op éen plek!
Kenniscentrum voor Beleid en Regelgeving, 2023.
L.A. Triesscheijn and F.W. De Jager. 2020. “Evaluatie Beleidskeuzes uitgelegd: toepassing door departementen en gebruik door de Tweede Kamer.” open.overheid.nl.
van der Knaap, P. 2023. “De lange adem van doelmatigheid en politiek.” Bestuurskunde 32 (4).
Kenniscentrum voor beleid en regelgeving. 2024. “Beleidskompas.” rijksoverheid.nl
Ministerie van FIN. 2024. “Evaluatiestelsel.” rijksfinancien.nl.
LinkedIn, Van der Knaap. Alles over beleidsevaluatie anno 2023 bij de Rijksoverheid…op éen plek!
Kenniscentrum voor Beleid en Regelgeving, 2023.
L.A. Triesscheijn and F.W. De Jager. 2020. “Evaluatie Beleidskeuzes uitgelegd: toepassing door departementen en gebruik door de Tweede Kamer.” open.overheid.nl.
van der Knaap, P. 2023. “De lange adem van doelmatigheid en politiek.” Bestuurskunde 32 (4).
Kenniscentrum voor beleid en regelgeving. 2024. “Beleidskompas.” rijksoverheid.nl
The government rarely draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
5
Belgium
In principle, RIAs are integral to the legislative process in Belgium, impacting environmental and population decisions. However, in practice, RIAs are often only superficially addressed. The OECD’s 2021 report states: “Belgium has not improved its institutional and policy framework for regulatory quality at the federal level over the last years. Regulatory impact assessment (RIA) is mandatory for all primary and for some subordinate legislation […] and is usually shared with social partners as a basis for consultation. RIAs for subordinate regulations are however no longer published. Belgium currently does not systematically require an identification and assessment of alternatives to the preferred policy option.” This places Belgium slightly below the OECD average (around 2.4 out of 4 primary law and 1.8 for subordinate regulations), with the quality of some evaluations being underwhelming and performed by ideologically aligned agencies.
Efforts are underway to improve this situation. The BOSA ministry, which offers technical support to other federal ministries, promotes “better regulation” and RIAs, mainly referencing European legislation and initiatives. However, the forms and evaluation reports are outdated, dating back to 2014 and 2015. Belgium’s regions can develop their own RIA rules. Flanders, the largest and wealthiest region, has a dedicated RIA webpage, with most documents dating back to 2012-2015. No similar resources were found for Wallonia or the Brussels Region.
Efforts are underway to improve this situation. The BOSA ministry, which offers technical support to other federal ministries, promotes “better regulation” and RIAs, mainly referencing European legislation and initiatives. However, the forms and evaluation reports are outdated, dating back to 2014 and 2015. Belgium’s regions can develop their own RIA rules. Flanders, the largest and wealthiest region, has a dedicated RIA webpage, with most documents dating back to 2012-2015. No similar resources were found for Wallonia or the Brussels Region.
Citations:
Betere regelgeving en impactanalyse | BOSA (belgium.be)
https://bosa.belgium.be/fr/themes/administration-numerique/simplification-administrative/meilleure-reglementation-et-analyse
RIA-databank | Vlaanderen Intern: https://overheid.vlaanderen.be/regelgeving/planning-en-opmaak-regelgeving/ria-databank
Leidraad voor de opmaak van een reguleringsimpactanalyse (RIA) | Vlaanderen.be https://www.vlaanderen.be/publicaties/leidraad-voor-de-opmaak-van-een-reguleringsimpactanalyse-ria
https://bosa.belgium.be/sites/default/files/content/documents/DTdocs/Simplification/AIR%20Manuel%20-%20FR%20oct2014.pdf
OECD. 2021. “OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021 – Belgium country profile.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/belgium-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
Betere regelgeving en impactanalyse | BOSA (belgium.be)
https://bosa.belgium.be/fr/themes/administration-numerique/simplification-administrative/meilleure-reglementation-et-analyse
RIA-databank | Vlaanderen Intern: https://overheid.vlaanderen.be/regelgeving/planning-en-opmaak-regelgeving/ria-databank
Leidraad voor de opmaak van een reguleringsimpactanalyse (RIA) | Vlaanderen.be https://www.vlaanderen.be/publicaties/leidraad-voor-de-opmaak-van-een-reguleringsimpactanalyse-ria
https://bosa.belgium.be/sites/default/files/content/documents/DTdocs/Simplification/AIR%20Manuel%20-%20FR%20oct2014.pdf
OECD. 2021. “OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021 – Belgium country profile.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/belgium-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
Ireland
Departments are required to conduct and publish Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) before making decisions on regulatory changes. This requirement arises from guidelines issued by the Department of the Taoiseach in 2009, rather than from legislative mandates.
The OECD has been critical of this practice, noting that RIAs are largely qualitative and that levels of ex post assessment may not be sufficient (OECD 2021). Despite the OECD’s recommendation to establish an oversight and scrutiny body with the mandate to ensure and review RIAs, the practice of completing and, more importantly, publishing RIAs has lagged. While Ireland scored high on the adoption and methodology of RIAs, it scored low on oversight and transparency (OECD 2021). There is a perception that key skills and a proofing culture have not been developed, except where required for international oversight. This expedience applies not only to RIAs but also to other forms of proofing, which are rarely binding and unevenly practiced. These include proofing, budgeting and auditing for gender, equality, poverty, rural issues, employment and competitiveness. The situation remains as described by the OECD (Scott 2022).
The OECD has been critical of this practice, noting that RIAs are largely qualitative and that levels of ex post assessment may not be sufficient (OECD 2021). Despite the OECD’s recommendation to establish an oversight and scrutiny body with the mandate to ensure and review RIAs, the practice of completing and, more importantly, publishing RIAs has lagged. While Ireland scored high on the adoption and methodology of RIAs, it scored low on oversight and transparency (OECD 2021). There is a perception that key skills and a proofing culture have not been developed, except where required for international oversight. This expedience applies not only to RIAs but also to other forms of proofing, which are rarely binding and unevenly practiced. These include proofing, budgeting and auditing for gender, equality, poverty, rural issues, employment and competitiveness. The situation remains as described by the OECD (Scott 2022).
Citations:
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2021. OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/publications/oecd-regulatory-policy-outlook-2021-38b0fdb1-en
Scott, C. 2022. The politics of regulation in Ireland Oxford, OUP: 647, 66-7.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2021. OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/publications/oecd-regulatory-policy-outlook-2021-38b0fdb1-en
Scott, C. 2022. The politics of regulation in Ireland Oxford, OUP: 647, 66-7.
Italy
In principle, RIAs are required for all ministries and local authorities under Laws 50/1999 and 246/2005. At the national level, ministries are responsible for conducting RIAs, while the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) oversees the review and quality control of the entire RIA process and coordinates related activities. The Department of Legal and Legislative Affairs of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (DAGL) develops the RIA methodology and presents annual reports to parliament.
Following reforms by previous governments, including a new RIA regulation effective December 15, 2017, the current RIA framework prohibits the Council of Ministers from discussing any proposal without an accompanying RIA. Although these rules were not always applied in the past, compliance has gradually improved, and most normative acts now include a RIA unless an exemption is granted due to the limited relevance of a proposal.
However, the quality of RIAs is still inconsistent. Observers have noted that while RIAs conducted by independent authorities are generally sound, those carried out by ministerial departments tend to be rather formalistic (Osservatorio Air 2022). The government’s 2022 report to parliament highlights two main issues:
Lack of sufficient technical and analytical skills: This limits the ability to conduct comprehensive analyses, including significant quantitative impact estimates.
Lack of coordination: Implementing RIAs for policies involving different administrations is often uncoordinated.
Overall, there are three persistent problems with RIAs:
Justification of political choices: RIAs are often used to justify political decisions rather than inform them.
Limited quantitative analysis: Comprehensive quantitative technical analysis is largely absent.
Failure to assess real impact: There is often no assessment of the actual impact of regulations after they are implemented.
In practice, RIAs are still viewed as a formal compliance effort within Italy’s central administrations. Policy changes are rarely based on the assessment of regulatory impact, and RIAs are not easily accessible; they are attached to the bill materials presented in parliament, making them difficult to find for those not familiar with the parliament’s website.
Following reforms by previous governments, including a new RIA regulation effective December 15, 2017, the current RIA framework prohibits the Council of Ministers from discussing any proposal without an accompanying RIA. Although these rules were not always applied in the past, compliance has gradually improved, and most normative acts now include a RIA unless an exemption is granted due to the limited relevance of a proposal.
However, the quality of RIAs is still inconsistent. Observers have noted that while RIAs conducted by independent authorities are generally sound, those carried out by ministerial departments tend to be rather formalistic (Osservatorio Air 2022). The government’s 2022 report to parliament highlights two main issues:
Lack of sufficient technical and analytical skills: This limits the ability to conduct comprehensive analyses, including significant quantitative impact estimates.
Lack of coordination: Implementing RIAs for policies involving different administrations is often uncoordinated.
Overall, there are three persistent problems with RIAs:
Justification of political choices: RIAs are often used to justify political decisions rather than inform them.
Limited quantitative analysis: Comprehensive quantitative technical analysis is largely absent.
Failure to assess real impact: There is often no assessment of the actual impact of regulations after they are implemented.
In practice, RIAs are still viewed as a formal compliance effort within Italy’s central administrations. Policy changes are rarely based on the assessment of regulatory impact, and RIAs are not easily accessible; they are attached to the bill materials presented in parliament, making them difficult to find for those not familiar with the parliament’s website.
Citations:
Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri. 2023. “RELAZIONE AL PARLAMENTO SULLO STATO DI.”
APPLICAZIONE DELL’ANALISI DELL’IMPATTO DELLA REGOLAMENTAZIONE. https://presidenza.governo.it/DAGL/uff_studi/Relazione_2022_AIR.pdf
Di Porto, V., and Espa, E. 2022. L’analisi di impatto e gli altri strumenti per la qualità della regolazione Annuario 2021. Napoli: ESI. https://osservatorioair.it/sites/default/files/files/annuario_osservatorioair_2021_ed2022.pdf
Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri. 2023. “RELAZIONE AL PARLAMENTO SULLO STATO DI.”
APPLICAZIONE DELL’ANALISI DELL’IMPATTO DELLA REGOLAMENTAZIONE. https://presidenza.governo.it/DAGL/uff_studi/Relazione_2022_AIR.pdf
Di Porto, V., and Espa, E. 2022. L’analisi di impatto e gli altri strumenti per la qualità della regolazione Annuario 2021. Napoli: ESI. https://osservatorioair.it/sites/default/files/files/annuario_osservatorioair_2021_ed2022.pdf
Japan
RIAs in Japan are based on the Government Policy Evaluations Act from 2001. All new policies of administrative organs have to be evaluated in terms of necessity, efficiency and effectiveness. Basic guidelines of policy evaluation are prepared by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, which also oversees implementation of RIAs and ensures the government-wide coherence of evaluation. The Implementation Guidelines for Policy Evaluation of Regulations from 2007 specified standard principles concerning the content and procedures of ex ante and ex post regulation evaluations. Reviews have to be conducted within five years.
Since the amendment of the guidelines in 2017, Japan has made progress in conducting RIAs and using their results to reduce administrative costs. All RIAs are published on a unified website and stakeholders may submit comments on subordinate regulations online. In the OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021, Japan scored slightly above the OECD average in terms of RIAs but last for stakeholder engagement when developing primary laws.
A major weakness of RIA in Japan is the lack of an independent regulatory oversight body. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications only compiles the reports submitted by different ministries and lacks the motivation to improve the evaluation process. In many cases, costs and benefits still are not sufficiently quantified. Moreover, it is not uncommon for evaluation reports to be published too late to have any influence on the content of regulations.
Since the amendment of the guidelines in 2017, Japan has made progress in conducting RIAs and using their results to reduce administrative costs. All RIAs are published on a unified website and stakeholders may submit comments on subordinate regulations online. In the OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021, Japan scored slightly above the OECD average in terms of RIAs but last for stakeholder engagement when developing primary laws.
A major weakness of RIA in Japan is the lack of an independent regulatory oversight body. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications only compiles the reports submitted by different ministries and lacks the motivation to improve the evaluation process. In many cases, costs and benefits still are not sufficiently quantified. Moreover, it is not uncommon for evaluation reports to be published too late to have any influence on the content of regulations.
Citations:
Kishimoto, Atsuo. 2018. “Kisei Eikyô Hyôka (RIA) no Katsuyô ni mukete: Kokusaitekina Dôkô to Nihon no Genjô to Kadai” [Making Good Use of Regulatory Impact Assessments: International and Domestic Trend and Challenge]. Kantô Gakuin Daigaku “Keizai-kei” 275 (November). https://kguopac.kanto-gakuin.ac.jp/webopac/bdyview.do?bodyid=NI30003274&elmid=Body&fname=005.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2001. “Government Policy Evaluations Act.” https://www.soumu.go.jp/english/kansatu/evaluation/evaluation_09.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2007. “Implementation Guidelines for Policy Evaluation of Regulations.” https://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000556223.pdf.
OECD. 2021. “Japan – Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/japan-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
OECD. 2023. Governance at a Glance 2023. Paris: OECD.
Kishimoto, Atsuo. 2018. “Kisei Eikyô Hyôka (RIA) no Katsuyô ni mukete: Kokusaitekina Dôkô to Nihon no Genjô to Kadai” [Making Good Use of Regulatory Impact Assessments: International and Domestic Trend and Challenge]. Kantô Gakuin Daigaku “Keizai-kei” 275 (November). https://kguopac.kanto-gakuin.ac.jp/webopac/bdyview.do?bodyid=NI30003274&elmid=Body&fname=005.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2001. “Government Policy Evaluations Act.” https://www.soumu.go.jp/english/kansatu/evaluation/evaluation_09.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2007. “Implementation Guidelines for Policy Evaluation of Regulations.” https://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000556223.pdf.
OECD. 2021. “Japan – Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/japan-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
OECD. 2023. Governance at a Glance 2023. Paris: OECD.
Lithuania
Ex ante impact assessments have been legally required since 2003, after Lithuania’s accession to the EU. However, the quality of these assessments has been poor, with the process turning into a purely formal exercise often summarized by the repeated phrase “no negative impact foreseen.” This statement is usually made without a timely and proper analysis of the potential impact of draft legislation, and without full consideration of alternative ways to achieve the desired policy goals. Additionally, stakeholder consultations are rarely properly conducted, even though guidelines for these consultations are prepared and publicly available on the government website.
There have been several attempts by different governments to improve the actual practice of impact assessments, including the efforts of the coalition government formed in late 2020. The government led by Ingrida Šimonytė committed in its program to focus on the quality rather than quantity of legislation, and to properly assess the impact of draft laws. It approved a list of priority legislative initiatives that had to be accompanied by impact assessments.
STRATA updated the methodology for this task, and in 2021 – 2023, organized trainings for civil servants on how to properly carry out impact assessments, including the role of consultations with stakeholders and assessments of different alternatives. Its experts also routinely consult with line ministries, advising them on specific impact assessments being undertaken. However, the gap between what is formally required and what is the actual practice remains wide, and the main observation of the OECD in its 2021 report that “most RIAs are conducted as a formality, with limited impact” remains largely valid.
There have been several attempts by different governments to improve the actual practice of impact assessments, including the efforts of the coalition government formed in late 2020. The government led by Ingrida Šimonytė committed in its program to focus on the quality rather than quantity of legislation, and to properly assess the impact of draft laws. It approved a list of priority legislative initiatives that had to be accompanied by impact assessments.
STRATA updated the methodology for this task, and in 2021 – 2023, organized trainings for civil servants on how to properly carry out impact assessments, including the role of consultations with stakeholders and assessments of different alternatives. Its experts also routinely consult with line ministries, advising them on specific impact assessments being undertaken. However, the gap between what is formally required and what is the actual practice remains wide, and the main observation of the OECD in its 2021 report that “most RIAs are conducted as a formality, with limited impact” remains largely valid.
Citations:
STRATA. “Impact assessment” (in Lithuanian). https://strata.gov.lt/poveikio-vertinimas/
OECD. 2021. Mobilising Evidence at the Center of Government in Lithuania: Strengthening Decision-Making and Policy.
Evaluation for Long-term Development. OECD Public Governance Reviews. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/323e3500-en
STRATA. “Impact assessment” (in Lithuanian). https://strata.gov.lt/poveikio-vertinimas/
OECD. 2021. Mobilising Evidence at the Center of Government in Lithuania: Strengthening Decision-Making and Policy.
Evaluation for Long-term Development. OECD Public Governance Reviews. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/323e3500-en
Slovakia
The standard formal mechanisms for evidence-informed policymaking are almost fully implemented in Slovakia. The Government at a Glance report (OECD, 2021) ranks Slovakia above the OECD average for the indicator “Regulatory Impact Assessment, Primary laws” and exactly at the OECD average level for the indicator “Systematic Adoption of Regulatory Impact Assessment.” The same is true for the set of indicators that evaluate the level of stakeholder engagement. However, the report does not show visible progress for 2017–2021.
Since the RIA approach was de facto introduced in Slovakia in 2001, no central unit has been established at the government’s core office. This situation did not change during the period under review. Gradually, consecutive governments have improved the methodology; however, its implementation has been rather erratic.
One key issue is that impact assessments apply only to measures initiated by the government on a regular basis (three rounds of reading in the parliamentary legislative procedure). Ministries, when drafting legislation, still often struggle with quantifying wider impacts and focus mainly on budgetary impacts and, to a lesser extent, impacts on the business environment. Since the COVID pandemic, the RIA process has been further limited by the increase in the fast-track legislative process.
The quality of the implementation of RIA and the transparency and openness of the legislative process significantly decreased during the COVID-19 crisis, and the situation did not return to “normal” even after the crisis (Staroňová, Lacková, and Sloboda, 2023). The quality of the legislative process is also confirmed by the Value for Money Unit report, published in October 2023 (Ministry of Finance, 2023). The report stresses that the system of ex ante evaluation is too formal and complex, without specific criteria depending on the level and content of the submitted proposal. It particularly highlights that ex ante assessment is often omitted. According to this report, in 2021 and 2022, more than 35% of the laws adopted by the parliament were parliament-sponsored legislation, or had more than 50 amendments longer than six standard pages submitted during the legislative process in 2022. According to research conducted in 2019, only seven out of 165 laws were adopted by the non-standard procedure. In 2021, this proportion changed to 60 out of 123, and in 2022, although it slightly dropped, it remained insufficient at 21 out of 175.
Since the RIA approach was de facto introduced in Slovakia in 2001, no central unit has been established at the government’s core office. This situation did not change during the period under review. Gradually, consecutive governments have improved the methodology; however, its implementation has been rather erratic.
One key issue is that impact assessments apply only to measures initiated by the government on a regular basis (three rounds of reading in the parliamentary legislative procedure). Ministries, when drafting legislation, still often struggle with quantifying wider impacts and focus mainly on budgetary impacts and, to a lesser extent, impacts on the business environment. Since the COVID pandemic, the RIA process has been further limited by the increase in the fast-track legislative process.
The quality of the implementation of RIA and the transparency and openness of the legislative process significantly decreased during the COVID-19 crisis, and the situation did not return to “normal” even after the crisis (Staroňová, Lacková, and Sloboda, 2023). The quality of the legislative process is also confirmed by the Value for Money Unit report, published in October 2023 (Ministry of Finance, 2023). The report stresses that the system of ex ante evaluation is too formal and complex, without specific criteria depending on the level and content of the submitted proposal. It particularly highlights that ex ante assessment is often omitted. According to this report, in 2021 and 2022, more than 35% of the laws adopted by the parliament were parliament-sponsored legislation, or had more than 50 amendments longer than six standard pages submitted during the legislative process in 2022. According to research conducted in 2019, only seven out of 165 laws were adopted by the non-standard procedure. In 2021, this proportion changed to 60 out of 123, and in 2022, although it slightly dropped, it remained insufficient at 21 out of 175.
Citations:
Haluš, M., Mykhalchyk Hradický, J., and Hronček, P. 2023. Ako nestrieľať naslepo. Bratislava: Ministry of Finance.
Staroňová, K., Lacková, N., and Sloboda, M. 2023. “Post-Crisis Emergency Legislation Consolidation: Regulatory Quality Principles for Good Times Only?” European Journal of Risk Regulation. Pre-print version.
OECD. 2021. Government at Glance. Paris: OECD
Haluš, M., Mykhalchyk Hradický, J., and Hronček, P. 2023. Ako nestrieľať naslepo. Bratislava: Ministry of Finance.
Staroňová, K., Lacková, N., and Sloboda, M. 2023. “Post-Crisis Emergency Legislation Consolidation: Regulatory Quality Principles for Good Times Only?” European Journal of Risk Regulation. Pre-print version.
OECD. 2021. Government at Glance. Paris: OECD
4
France
The practice of compiling regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) has been followed since the 1990s, notably under the supervision of the PMO. This is one of the missions of parliament, in accordance with Article 24 of the constitution (amendment of 2008). Yet despite a growing interest in them, there is still no systematic RIA process, with comparable rules and methodologies. RIA processes remain largely optional and generally focus on social policies (Desplatz and Lacouette Fougère 2019). There are also partial substitutes, however. The finance and budget ministries try to systematically evaluate the fiscal impact of any new measure.
More recently, the government think tank France Stratégie has been charged with evaluating the impact of public policies. The think tank has published methodological guidelines for evaluating public policies, but these are seldom followed. Last-minute amendments to parliamentary bills tend not to be subject to this type of evaluation. This necessitates frequent post facto modifications to legislation, as unexpected or collateral effects have not been properly anticipated. The Court of Accounts produces regulatory assessments on an ex post basis that might help to revise legislation, but it cannot provide the benefits of an anticipatory strategy.
What is lacking is a systematic examination involving all the main stakeholders. The role of the Conseil économique, Social et Environnemental – which has been designed for this purpose – is generally considered too limited.
More recently, the government think tank France Stratégie has been charged with evaluating the impact of public policies. The think tank has published methodological guidelines for evaluating public policies, but these are seldom followed. Last-minute amendments to parliamentary bills tend not to be subject to this type of evaluation. This necessitates frequent post facto modifications to legislation, as unexpected or collateral effects have not been properly anticipated. The Court of Accounts produces regulatory assessments on an ex post basis that might help to revise legislation, but it cannot provide the benefits of an anticipatory strategy.
What is lacking is a systematic examination involving all the main stakeholders. The role of the Conseil économique, Social et Environnemental – which has been designed for this purpose – is generally considered too limited.
Citations:
Desplatz, R., and Lacouette Fougère, C. 2019. “L’évaluation des politiques publiques en France.” Document de travail France Stratégie 13. Retrieved 15 January 2024 at https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/fs-dt-13-evaluation-france_19_decembre_2019.pdf
Desplatz, R., and Lacouette Fougère, C. 2019. “L’évaluation des politiques publiques en France.” Document de travail France Stratégie 13. Retrieved 15 January 2024 at https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/fs-dt-13-evaluation-france_19_decembre_2019.pdf
Portugal
According to the OECD’s Regulatory Policy and Governance 2022 indicators, stakeholder involvement in regulation in Portugal is lower than the OECD average in 2021. For example, there is no obligation to include business organizations and trade unions in the negotiation phase of the legislative process, and the government does not facilitate their involvement in the European Commission’s consultation process.
The Portuguese government approved a resolution (Resolution No. 44/2017 of the Council of Ministers on March 24, 2017) concerning a “Model for Legislative Impact Assessment.” In 2018, they invited an OECD team to produce a report titled “Reviewing and Supporting Regulatory Impact in Portugal.” A government institution was created to implement ex ante impact assessments of legislation: the Legislative Impact Assessment Technical Unit (UTAIL) within JurisAPP – Centro de Competências Jurídicas do Estado. However, the last report it produced, which referred to the 2018 year, was in 2019. This indicates that the initial impetus for impact assessment of legislation (2017 – 2018) seems to have vanished.
The Portuguese government approved a resolution (Resolution No. 44/2017 of the Council of Ministers on March 24, 2017) concerning a “Model for Legislative Impact Assessment.” In 2018, they invited an OECD team to produce a report titled “Reviewing and Supporting Regulatory Impact in Portugal.” A government institution was created to implement ex ante impact assessments of legislation: the Legislative Impact Assessment Technical Unit (UTAIL) within JurisAPP – Centro de Competências Jurídicas do Estado. However, the last report it produced, which referred to the 2018 year, was in 2019. This indicates that the initial impetus for impact assessment of legislation (2017 – 2018) seems to have vanished.
Citations:
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). “Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance EUROPE 2022 Portugal.” https://web-archive.oecd.org/2022-08-03/638949-Portugal-country-profile-EU-report-2022.pdf
JurisAPP Unidade Técnica de Avaliação de Impacto Legislativo. 2019. Relatório de Atividade – Ano de 2018.
https://jurisapp.gov.pt/media/1113/utail-relatorio-2018_final_15042019_publica.pdf
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). “Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance EUROPE 2022 Portugal.” https://web-archive.oecd.org/2022-08-03/638949-Portugal-country-profile-EU-report-2022.pdf
JurisAPP Unidade Técnica de Avaliação de Impacto Legislativo. 2019. Relatório de Atividade – Ano de 2018.
https://jurisapp.gov.pt/media/1113/utail-relatorio-2018_final_15042019_publica.pdf
3
Hungary
Upon taking office, the second Orbán government amended provisions for regulatory impact assessments (RIAs). Legal sources include a 2010 law (Act on Lawmaking) and a 2011 government decree (No. 24/2011 VIII.9). In practice, RIAs have suffered from sluggish and selective implementation (Brenner/Fazekas 2020; Corruption Research Center 2017; Staroňová 2014). An amendment to the 2010 Act in March 2019 (OECD 2021) aimed to simplify and expedite legislation to avoid costs, legal obligations and administrative burdens. Another objective was to prevent overregulation and regulatory overlap (OECD 2022).
The core executive branch (government office) coordinates the RIA process. The quality of the RIA process in Hungary has been poor, at least until the 2019 reform (OECD 2021), and has not significantly improved since. It is often not well-considered, not sustainable, or not correctly implemented due to the fast pace of lawmaking in Hungary (Kührner 2021:83). Substantial stakeholder participation is often lacking because the idea of consultation is alien to the Orbán government.
Additionally, there is no independent evaluation of RIAs. Many RIAs are conducted by local affiliates of the “Big Four” accounting firms, and the findings are rarely or only partially made available to political actors on the special website for RIAs (hatasvizsgalat.kormany.hu). Public information requests from the media to access RIAs are in most cases rejected by the government, and in some instances already published RIAs have become unavailable (for an example in the case of an RIA relating to a battery plant; see Spirk 2024). Similarly, the annual report on RIAs prepared by the Prime Minister’s Office is not publicly available. The relevant decree removes the need to conclude RIAs during a state of emergency, which has been the norm in Hungary since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Constitutionally, therefore, the government can easily waive the obligation if it so desires.
The core executive branch (government office) coordinates the RIA process. The quality of the RIA process in Hungary has been poor, at least until the 2019 reform (OECD 2021), and has not significantly improved since. It is often not well-considered, not sustainable, or not correctly implemented due to the fast pace of lawmaking in Hungary (Kührner 2021:83). Substantial stakeholder participation is often lacking because the idea of consultation is alien to the Orbán government.
Additionally, there is no independent evaluation of RIAs. Many RIAs are conducted by local affiliates of the “Big Four” accounting firms, and the findings are rarely or only partially made available to political actors on the special website for RIAs (hatasvizsgalat.kormany.hu). Public information requests from the media to access RIAs are in most cases rejected by the government, and in some instances already published RIAs have become unavailable (for an example in the case of an RIA relating to a battery plant; see Spirk 2024). Similarly, the annual report on RIAs prepared by the Prime Minister’s Office is not publicly available. The relevant decree removes the need to conclude RIAs during a state of emergency, which has been the norm in Hungary since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Constitutionally, therefore, the government can easily waive the obligation if it so desires.
Citations:
Brenner, D., and M. Fazekas. 2020. “Legislative Effects of Regulatory Impact Assessment: A Comparative Event History Analysis of Modifications of Law in France, Italy, Hungary and the UK.” Government Transparency Institute. 2020. Working Paper 2020-3. http://www.govtransparency.eu/legislativeeffects-of-regulatory-impact-assessment-a-comparative-event-history-analysis-of-modifications-of-law-in-
france-italy-hungary-and-the-uk/).
Corruption Research Center. 2017. Report on the Quality of Hungarian Legislation – 2011-2016. Budapest.
Kührner, László. 2021. “Így vizsgáltok ti - A magyar hatásvizsgálati rendszer hiányosságai.” PSz 2021 (2): 83-94.OECD. 2021. Hungary: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021. Paris.
https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/hungary-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdfOECD. 2022. Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance Europe 22, Hungary. Paris: OECD. https://web-archive.oecd.org/2022-08-03/638930-Hungary-country-profile-EU-report-2022.pdf
Staroňová, K. 2014. “L’institutionnalisation des études d’impact en Europe centrale et orientale.” Revue Française D’ Administration Publique. 149(1): 123-143.
Spirk, J. 2024. “Eltüntették a debreceni akkumulátorgyárról készült szakértői tanulmányt, amelyben óriási vízfogyasztásról írtak.” 24.hu, February 3. https://24.hu/belfold/2023/02/03/debrecen-catl-akkumulatorgyar-szorolap-hazugsag-vizfogyasztas/
Brenner, D., and M. Fazekas. 2020. “Legislative Effects of Regulatory Impact Assessment: A Comparative Event History Analysis of Modifications of Law in France, Italy, Hungary and the UK.” Government Transparency Institute. 2020. Working Paper 2020-3. http://www.govtransparency.eu/legislativeeffects-of-regulatory-impact-assessment-a-comparative-event-history-analysis-of-modifications-of-law-in-
france-italy-hungary-and-the-uk/).
Corruption Research Center. 2017. Report on the Quality of Hungarian Legislation – 2011-2016. Budapest.
Kührner, László. 2021. “Így vizsgáltok ti - A magyar hatásvizsgálati rendszer hiányosságai.” PSz 2021 (2): 83-94.OECD. 2021. Hungary: Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021. Paris.
https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/hungary-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdfOECD. 2022. Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance Europe 22, Hungary. Paris: OECD. https://web-archive.oecd.org/2022-08-03/638930-Hungary-country-profile-EU-report-2022.pdf
Staroňová, K. 2014. “L’institutionnalisation des études d’impact en Europe centrale et orientale.” Revue Française D’ Administration Publique. 149(1): 123-143.
Spirk, J. 2024. “Eltüntették a debreceni akkumulátorgyárról készült szakértői tanulmányt, amelyben óriási vízfogyasztásról írtak.” 24.hu, February 3. https://24.hu/belfold/2023/02/03/debrecen-catl-akkumulatorgyar-szorolap-hazugsag-vizfogyasztas/
Poland
Regulatory impact assessments (RIA) are well established in the Polish legislative process. Such evaluations are mandatory when developing draft normative acts including laws, normative acts of the Council of Ministers, regulations of the prime minister or other ministers, orders of the prime minister, and draft assumptions underlying legislative proposals. The Budget Act is an exception, for which a separate procedure for submission and adoption is accepted. The framework document is the “Guidelines for Impact Assessment and Public Consultations in the Government Legislative Process,” which was adopted by the Council of Ministers on May 5, 2015. The Government Legislative Center is responsible for overseeing the RIA process. Additionally, guidelines have been published on the governmental website providing instructions for entities conducting RIAs.
Draft regulations are to be accompanied by a justification and a standardized regulatory impact assessment that addresses financial impact, consultation results, examples of regulations in other countries and expected outcomes. All stages of the process are well described and published on the website. During public consultations, various stakeholders who can provide empirical information are engaged. Under the PiS government, although legal requirements were met, the selection of consultative bodies was selective. The Chancellery assessed the quality of individual RIAs, as there was no independent body responsible for this evaluation.
Draft regulations are to be accompanied by a justification and a standardized regulatory impact assessment that addresses financial impact, consultation results, examples of regulations in other countries and expected outcomes. All stages of the process are well described and published on the website. During public consultations, various stakeholders who can provide empirical information are engaged. Under the PiS government, although legal requirements were met, the selection of consultative bodies was selective. The Chancellery assessed the quality of individual RIAs, as there was no independent body responsible for this evaluation.
The government does not draw on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
2
---
---
1
---
---